The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

The men who feel left out of US abortion debate

An interesting take on the debate from the 3rd side of the picket line.
Now generally speaking i subscribe to the view of women have to deal with the wee parasite for 9months ergo it should be their choice but the article raises a good point in that too often we overlook the male in the debate who by all rights should have a say. And a far more important voice than the bible thumping wingnuts who, for lack of a better phrase, can **** off from matters of national importance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49240582

Scroll to see replies

Men who want a child that their female partner doesn't want has been brought up in just about every debate about abortion I've ever had personally, is the US really missing a point that obvious?
I suppose the main question is where one should draw the line when it comes to men “having a say”. For a less hostile environment it seems logical that, if the situation is non-violent, the pregnant women should tell the man that she is pregnant and discuss options. The real issue then comes to who actually decides what the outcome is. If one believes in strong autonomy rights, it seems logical that the opinion of the pregnant woman is all that matters objectively. After all, discussion is either going to lead to abortion or no abortion. I think some of the hostility towards males in the abortion debate comes from a fear that they will be given a veto power on the woman’s ability to have an abortion, ergo restricting her reproductive autonomy. So while discussion should be encouraged, I think that an inclusion of males in the debate will only be well-received when it is fully acknowledged that the final decision is down to the pregnant woman.
Original post by Retired_Messiah
Men who want a child that their female partner doesn't want has been brought up in just about every debate about abortion I've ever had personally, is the US really missing a point that obvious?

The other side of the coin is more interesting - the rights, or otherwise, of a potential father to renounce a child he doesn't want, especially in cases of female-on-male forced sex, where the woman wrongly claimed to be on the pill, or where protection was used but didn't work.
Reply 4
Avatar for Bio 7
Bio 7
21
The woman should always have the final say since they have to carry the parasite around.
Original post by Napp
An interesting take on the debate from the 3rd side of the picket line.
Now generally speaking i subscribe to the view of women have to deal with the wee parasite for 9months ergo it should be their choice but the article raises a good point in that too often we overlook the male in the debate who by all rights should have a say. And a far more important voice than the bible thumping wingnuts who, for lack of a better phrase, can **** off from matters of national importance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49240582

Labelling a fetus a parasite is straight up propaganda, reproduction is essential to life, it is biological requirement of life, its not the same as a normal 'parasite', without it human life would become extinct...

I have subscribed to the belief that its a baby once it has cognitive ability, this happens at roughly the 23 week mark, after this point abortion should be banned (obvious exceptions being: life threatening to mother, baby will have debilitating condition or other factor on similar level of seriousness).

I find my viewpoint falls in-line with current UK regulation, but i hate the rhetoric people have on the debate, to some people its a baby after 8 weeks (when it has a heartbeat) others from conception. And i dont think the labelling of these people bigots etc is helpful, especially when all they want to do is protect human life, there is no clear rule for when a fetus transitions from fetus to homosapien.

One issue I do think is important, is religion should have No say on regulation, and whilst as a guy i've never been in the position of having a kid or impregnating someone, I do think the guy should have some say on keeping a potential future baby, but i dont think its something you can regulate as each situation is so unique.
Reply 6
Avatar for Napp
Napp
OP
22
Original post by mnot
Labelling a fetus a parasite is straight up propaganda, reproduction is essential to life, it is biological requirement of life, its not the same as a normal 'parasite', without it human life would become extinct...


I’m not sure you know what propaganda is as that comment was quite clearly tongue in cheek.
Nah, woman’s body, woman’s choice. As if a guy is gonna try to convince the girl the keep the baby cause HE wants it.
Reply 8
Avatar for JWatch
JWatch
10
Original post by Miriam29
I suppose the main question is where one should draw the line when it comes to men “having a say”. For a less hostile environment it seems logical that, if the situation is non-violent, the pregnant women should tell the man that she is pregnant and discuss options. The real issue then comes to who actually decides what the outcome is. If one believes in strong autonomy rights, it seems logical that the opinion of the pregnant woman is all that matters objectively. After all, discussion is either going to lead to abortion or no abortion. I think some of the hostility towards males in the abortion debate comes from a fear that they will be given a veto power on the woman’s ability to have an abortion, ergo restricting her reproductive autonomy. So while discussion should be encouraged, I think that an inclusion of males in the debate will only be well-received when it is fully acknowledged that the final decision is down to the pregnant woman.

I think that as long as it doesn't get violent or threatening, men should be allowed a say. That includes protesting outside abortion clinics provided of course they don't physically obstruct. Many people including me feel that life begins at conception and that whatever valid reasons a woman may feel she has for abortion, it still kills an innocent person and we should be allowed to express those views not just in private but also in public.
Original post by Napp
I’m not sure you know what propaganda is as that comment was quite clearly tongue in cheek.

my mistake, but people actually use that term seriously, as in post 5.
Why should men have a say in what their partners do with their own bodies? Whilst it’s good if both parties are involved in the discussion, it shouldn’t be an obligation. Following this argument to its ultimate conclusion (which let’s face it the ant-abortion/ultra-conservative lobby would do) women only have a fifty percent stake in the future of their own bodies, and fathers can get an essential veto over abortions. The guy in the article is trying to sue a family planning clinic for following through on the wishes of a woman constitutionally guaranteed the right to make that choice. It’s not his call to make, and failing to recognise that would be a dangerous step back for reproductive rights, gender equality, and personal freedom.
Original post by Napp
An interesting take on the debate from the 3rd side of the picket line.
Now generally speaking i subscribe to the view of women have to deal with the wee parasite for 9months ergo it should be their choice but the article raises a good point in that too often we overlook the male in the debate who by all rights should have a say. And a far more important voice than the bible thumping wingnuts who, for lack of a better phrase, can **** off from matters of national importance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49240582

If a woman does not consent to having a child then she should not be forced to have one. That's her decision, not the decision of anyone else.

Giving a man the final say on whether a woman has an abortion takes away that autonomy; you'd be forcing someone to give up their body without consent, which under no other circumstance would we require of a person (and rightfully so).
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by SHallowvale
If a woman does not consent to having a child then she should not be forced to have one. That's her decision, not the decision of anyone else.

Giving a man the final say on whether a woman has an abortion takes away that autonomy; you'd be forcing someone to give up their body without consent, which under no other circumstance would we require of a person (and rightfully so).

What if a man does not consent to having a child? Females CAN force penetration without a man's consent, and could lie about birth control, pierce condoms etc. Should a man have to support a child he was given no choice in conceiving? Does a man who doesn't want to be a father have no say if he becomes one or not?
Original post by SHallowvale
If a woman does not consent to having a child then she should not be forced to have one. That's her decision, not the decision of anyone else.

Giving a man the final say on whether a woman has an abortion takes away that autonomy; you'd be forcing someone to give up their body without consent, which under no other circumstance would we require of a person (and rightfully so).

if you dont want kids , be celibate
Original post by DerivativeName
What if a man does not consent to having a child? Females CAN force penetration without a man's consent, and could lie about birth control, pierce condoms etc. Should a man have to support a child he was given no choice in conceiving? Does a man who doesn't want to be a father have no say if he becomes one or not?

Are you asking this because you think a man should be able to veto both an abortion and a pregnancy, or are these hypotheticals?
How do you remove obligation of emotional support though? Sure there will be proper who are fine never seeing their kid, but if I was forced to have a kid I would feel a duty to support the kid and help bring it up. Which would ruin my life. How do we remove that obligation?

I would want an abortion. Is my life less important than the woman who manipulated or raped me?
Original post by TSR Mustafa
if you dont want kids , be celibate

Consent to sex is not consent to getting pregnant.


True!
Original post by SHallowvale
Are you asking this because you think a man should be able to veto both an abortion and a pregnancy, or are these hypotheticals?

I'm playing devils advocate a bit. I obviously don't think a man should just be able to veto an abortion. BUT I do think it's unfair to suggest a man shouldn't have a say and it can't be their choice, because the woman has to physically carry the child.

It's a lot more nuanced than that
Original post by DerivativeName
I'm playing devils advocate a bit. I obviously don't think a man should just be able to veto an abortion. BUT I do think it's unfair to suggest a man shouldn't have a say and it can't be their choice, because the woman has to physically carry the child.

It's a lot more nuanced than that

Ah right, just wanted to clarify.

Whether a woman has/can have an abortion and whether a child is to be held financially/legally responsible for said child are two separate issues. The former involves bodily autonomy while the latter involves financial/legal autonomy (for lack of a better word). We tend to hold those two things as separate and not 'equal', morally/ethically speaking.
Another issue is that people don't agree on when the unborn child becomes a human life. The woman wouldn't be murdering a baby cause for most people, it isn't a real life yet.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you