Men's view on abortion if you got a women pregnant?
Scroll to see replies
Also, I'm pretty sure that the OP asked for men's opinions on abortions. How about men are allowed to talk about how they feel about something for once without some screeching woman with an agenda telling them they are wrong about everything?
Go on mumsnet and criticise women that do/don't breastfeed or do/don't have csections instead.
Go on mumsnet and criticise women that do/don't breastfeed or do/don't have csections instead.
sure, it's her body, but in my opinion, if she *knows* both that the man withdraws consent, or never consented (e.g. the condom broke), and that she can have an abortion at that time, then the man shouldn't be forced to pay for *her* decision for 18 years.
See it's a complicated matter that I think comes down to the individuals. Different people will have different ways of compromising or not as it were. I'm admittedly more likely to support the men that want her to abort the baby, then those who want to keep it. Not because I'm solely in support of abortion, more that a first time father has no idea what he's getting into and it seems unfair for the mother to carry the baby for 9 months with such uncertainty in the equation.
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!
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!
The point stands despite your bolshiness. Foetuses can and do survive before 24 weeks. There is no hard barrier between 'organism dependent on mother' and 'independent human being'; attempting to set the barrier on the basis of increased risk of disability is akin to saying killing an infant with Down's Syndrome is not murder.
Now, before you retaliate at me as you did to that poster, note this: I am not opposed to abortion. Although I believe it is impossible to justify it from an abstract and internally consistent morally sense (i.e. there is no convincing rationale that it is not, in essence, equivalent to murder) I still support fully the right to an abortion, on the grounds of practicality and its benefit to society. Simply put, although it is morally unjustifiable, the good the option provides outweighs the bad, in my opinion.
However I am fully in agreement with tazarooni's proposal that it should require both biological parents' consents to carry a child to term. If either one should disagree, then either the foetus should be aborted, or the option should be made available to opt out of the child's life entirely (no visitation rights, no child support, etc) once born.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Huskaris
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.
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.
Good try, but no. The issue is not my "distress" (if you or Si ever try acting like this with someone who has actually had a preemie baby, you will learn all about distress).
The issue is that I am the only one making any attempt to lay out "all the facts"! Compare the information in the document you linked to your summation of it, complete with an emotive, inaccurate "children".
Original post by Falcatas
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?
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?
If I want an abortion (though I'd never
) and my partner is like, "No"...I wouldn't get one 
Original post by Octopus_Garden
Good try, but no. The issue is not my "distress" (if you or Si ever try acting like this with someone who has actually had a preemie baby, you will learn all about distress).
The issue is that I am the only one making any attempt to lay out "all the facts"! Compare the information in the document you linked to your summation of it, complete with an emotive, inaccurate "children".
The issue is that I am the only one making any attempt to lay out "all the facts"! Compare the information in the document you linked to your summation of it, complete with an emotive, inaccurate "children".
Wow... Ok..
"What law defines the age of a child in the UK?
There is no single law that defines the age of a child across the UK. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child “means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989)."
My statement was correct. Children (because that is what they are once they are born as we see above) survive outside the womb if born before 24 weeks.
Nothing I said was incorrect. I don't know what has happened to you to make you so traumatically nonsensical and dramatic over this, but I hope you get the help you need, whatever it may be.
All the best.
Original post by ldsbabe
No uterus=no opinion
ugh. That's his child too.
Original post by ClickItBack
The point stands despite your bolshiness. Foetuses can and do survive before 24 weeks. There is no hard barrier between 'organism dependent on mother' and 'independent human being'; attempting to set the barrier on the basis of increased risk of disability is akin to saying killing an infant with Down's Syndrome is not murder.
Now, before you retaliate at me as you did to that poster, note this: I am not opposed to abortion. Although I believe it is impossible to justify it from an abstract and internally consistent morally sense (i.e. there is no convincing rationale that it is not, in essence, equivalent to murder) I still support fully the right to an abortion, on the grounds of practicality and its benefit to society. Simply put, although it is morally unjustifiable, the good the option provides outweighs the bad, in my opinion.
However I am fully in agreement with tazarooni's proposal that it should require both biological parents' consents to carry a child to term. If either one should disagree, then either the foetus should be aborted, or the option should be made available to opt out of the child's life entirely (no visitation rights, no child support, etc) once born.
Now, before you retaliate at me as you did to that poster, note this: I am not opposed to abortion. Although I believe it is impossible to justify it from an abstract and internally consistent morally sense (i.e. there is no convincing rationale that it is not, in essence, equivalent to murder) I still support fully the right to an abortion, on the grounds of practicality and its benefit to society. Simply put, although it is morally unjustifiable, the good the option provides outweighs the bad, in my opinion.
However I am fully in agreement with tazarooni's proposal that it should require both biological parents' consents to carry a child to term. If either one should disagree, then either the foetus should be aborted, or the option should be made available to opt out of the child's life entirely (no visitation rights, no child support, etc) once born.
"Foetuses can and do survive before 24 weeks" is as meaningless as saying "people can and do survive car crashes" without giving any data on typical outcomes, or splitting the data by speed before the crash.
This remains the case, whatever your personal moral beliefs.
Original post by ApeMob
ugh. That's his child too.
Well it's not technically a child...yet.
Original post by Octopus_Garden
I do not particularly care whether you write pro-choice, pro-abortion, or pro-life on surveys. My issue is going to be with your argument, so I will disregard the rest of that "but I'm on your siiiiiiiiiide" post.
"Foetuses can and do survive before 24 weeks" is as meaningless as saying "people can and do survive car crashes" without giving any data on typical outcomes, or splitting the data by speed before the crash.
This remains the case, whatever your personal moral beliefs.
"Foetuses can and do survive before 24 weeks" is as meaningless as saying "people can and do survive car crashes" without giving any data on typical outcomes, or splitting the data by speed before the crash.
This remains the case, whatever your personal moral beliefs.
It is not meaningless at all in the context of this thread. As I said, even if a tiny percentage survive with terrible disabilities prior to 24 weeks, it means that the argument that 'prior to 24 weeks the foetus is categorically not a human being capable of surviving without its mother' is invalid.
I take it that you would agree with me that stabbing a terminal, late stage cancer patient is still murder. This is no different.
(incidentally I also support euthanasia - for the same reasons as I support abortion)
Original post by Huskaris
Wow... Ok..
"What law defines the age of a child in the UK?
There is no single law that defines the age of a child across the UK. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child “means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989)."
My statement was correct. Children (because that is what they are once they are born as we see above) survive outside the womb if born before 24 weeks.
Nothing I said was incorrect. I don't know what has happened to you to make you so traumatically nonsensical and dramatic over this, but I hope you get the help you need, whatever it may be.
All the best.
"What law defines the age of a child in the UK?
There is no single law that defines the age of a child across the UK. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child “means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989)."
My statement was correct. Children (because that is what they are once they are born as we see above) survive outside the womb if born before 24 weeks.
Nothing I said was incorrect. I don't know what has happened to you to make you so traumatically nonsensical and dramatic over this, but I hope you get the help you need, whatever it may be.
All the best.
The standard used to be/is outside legal terminology that humans are infants from birth to 2 years, and then children.
Nothing happened, but thank you for your concern. It might even by genuinely meant.
I am terse, and frankly, I like it.Original post by ClickItBack
It is not meaningless at all in the context of this thread. As I said, even if a tiny percentage survive with terrible disabilities prior to 24 weeks, it means that the argument that 'prior to 24 weeks the foetus is categorically not a human being capable of surviving without its mother' is invalid.
I take it that you would agree with me that stabbing a terminal, late stage cancer patient is still murder. This is no different.
(incidentally I also support euthanasia - for the same reasons as I support abortion)
I take it that you would agree with me that stabbing a terminal, late stage cancer patient is still murder. This is no different.
(incidentally I also support euthanasia - for the same reasons as I support abortion)
More attempts to bring the law in. *sighs*
No, Daily-Mail style human-interest anecdotes about tiny percentages are not meaningful. Data, stripped of context and thus incomplete, are not meaningful.
Let's consider how this tangent started.
It's been found that foetuses can survive outside the uterus way before the 24 weeks cut off.
No mention of numbers, no mention of any disabilities, absolutely no mention of the measures needed to keep them alive.
I refer you to this blog. Written about 21 weekers, by an NICU nurse.
http://thepreemieexperiment.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/viability-through-eyes-of-nicu-nurse.html
From reading the UK Mail Online article, and more importantly reading the over 600 comments on this topic, it has made me painfully aware of the ignorance, naivete, and anger the public perception is of caring for infant’s at the edge of viability. Nowhere in the world, including the United States( which arguably had the most advanced technologies when it comes to NICU care), is it routine to resuscitate infants below 23 weeks gestation. In the United States, guidelines for initiating resuscitation vary from 23-24 weeks, and 450 to 500 grams
There's some very graphic descriptions of necrotizing enterocolitis, so be warned.
Personally, I think it would be rather unfair to force a woman to abort, or force her to give birth against her will. So that option is a no-no. However, I do think men should have the option to 'abort financially'. Basically, they give up all parenting rights (In effect, they become a total stranger to the child) but they do not have to pay child support. It seems fair, women have the choice to abort, give up for adoption, or keep the child. Men have almost zero choice.
I think the guy should have input. It shouldn't be his decision, that has to go to the person who'd be carrying the child around for nine months, but I can't agree with the idea that the man's view is irrelevant.
I guess I'd think of it as like the woman being a queen and the man being her advisor in this scenario. The views of both people are valid and relevant and the decision of whether or not to have the child rests with the woman, but if it was me, I'd want a dialogue, an exchange of ideas so that she'd, at the bare minimum, just know where the potential father stands on things. Then, ideally, having heard my p.o.v. she'd consider all the factors at play in such a huge decision and make up her own mind.
Then I'd support the choice she makes.
I guess I'd think of it as like the woman being a queen and the man being her advisor in this scenario. The views of both people are valid and relevant and the decision of whether or not to have the child rests with the woman, but if it was me, I'd want a dialogue, an exchange of ideas so that she'd, at the bare minimum, just know where the potential father stands on things. Then, ideally, having heard my p.o.v. she'd consider all the factors at play in such a huge decision and make up her own mind.
Then I'd support the choice she makes.
Men should have the right to not be the guardian or the wallet. Kind of like adoption except you can just sign away legal responsibilities. It makes no sense to have a child when either parent doesn't want it.
People make mistakes. They have sex for pleasure. People don't generally have sex with the intention of having kids.
People make mistakes. They have sex for pleasure. People don't generally have sex with the intention of having kids.
Original post by Snagprophet
Men should have the right to not be the guardian or the wallet. Kind of like adoption except you can just sign away legal responsibilities. It makes no sense to have a child when either parent doesn't want it.
People make mistakes. They have sex for pleasure. People don't generally have sex with the intention of having kids.
People make mistakes. They have sex for pleasure. People don't generally have sex with the intention of having kids.
THEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE SEX.
Oh a masculinist. Like a feminist, only for men
I see where this is going.Original post by Octopus_Garden
More attempts to bring the law in. *sighs*
No, Daily-Mail style human-interest anecdotes about tiny percentages are not meaningful. Data, stripped of context and thus incomplete, are not meaningful.
Let's consider how this tangent started.
No mention of numbers, no mention of any disabilities, absolutely no mention of the measures needed to keep them alive.
I refer you to this blog. Written about 21 weekers, by an NICU nurse.
http://thepreemieexperiment.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/viability-through-eyes-of-nicu-nurse.html
There's some very graphic descriptions of necrotizing enterocolitis, so be warned.
No, Daily-Mail style human-interest anecdotes about tiny percentages are not meaningful. Data, stripped of context and thus incomplete, are not meaningful.
Let's consider how this tangent started.
No mention of numbers, no mention of any disabilities, absolutely no mention of the measures needed to keep them alive.
I refer you to this blog. Written about 21 weekers, by an NICU nurse.
http://thepreemieexperiment.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/viability-through-eyes-of-nicu-nurse.html
There's some very graphic descriptions of necrotizing enterocolitis, so be warned.
We are arguing at cross purposes and do not necessarily disagree.
You called the poster out on his phrasing of the chances of pre-24 weekers. That I agree with.
I'm more interested in why the 24 week point is of interest in the first place. Many - not you, necessarily- firmly believe that prior to that there is no chance of surival. None. 0%. And therefore that the foetus is not human; and therefore abortion is not murder. I am calling that reasoning out, with the poster's statistics backing me up - and again, I do so not because I disagree with the ends (legalised abortion) but because it is wishful, illogical reasoning.
Since I agree with you on your point, there is no need to respond with more data desperately trying to convince me of something I already agree with. If you wish to debate my point, that's up to you.
Women have to have the final say, but there should be extreme social and institutional pressure for the man to be part of all consultations. And in case of a split, when child support/custody is awarded, whether the man had the baby under protest should be taken into account, i.e. a less punitive child support award, but no custody.
Of course it will never happen because nobody cares about men.
Of course it will never happen because nobody cares about men.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
