• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
But should we forcé the father to be a father and support his children?

Shouldt the father be legally obligated? (Despite the fact that woman don’t have that obligation)

I say yes, because the child’s right to have shelter and food, trumps any “gender inequality” that might rise from it.


I think i answered those but i will rephrase them for you

The male was complicit in causing the pregnancy he should therefore take responsibility for his actions. Whether that is being a part of the decision to abort the child or help financially and morally support the child.

The woman has no choice in that obligation assuming no abortion
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Male Abortion (should men have the right to abort)

Male abortion, also called paper abortion, is a concept that suggests the men should be free to decide if they want to be fathers or not.

In other words, if the woman gets pregnant and she doesn’t whant to abort, the man should have the right to abandon the child, and not pay any kind of pension, child support nor anything of that sort

The logic is: if woman have the right to decide not to be mothers and have the right to avoid such responsability, why can’t men have the same right and decide not to be fathers.

I am personally against men and women aborting, but my question is if you are a person who is pro-abortion do you support both type of abortion?

False equivalence.
The right of women to abort has to do with their rights to their own bodies.

The sperm dad has just as much to say about the mother's body as a condemning evangelist does. Which is to say: nothing.

It's the woman's choice what happens to her own body.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
So you seriously can't see a moral difference between:

- getting an abortion
- using financial coercion to force someone else into getting an abortion they don't want

Give your head a shake. This is a new low, even for you.
Irrelevant for the OP …….. but no I don’t see any moral relevant difference.

If the fetus is not a human then abortion (or forcing someone to abort) shouldn’t be a big of a deal.

If the fetus is a human, the killing him would be absolutely wrong, in both cases.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But should we forcé the father to be a father and support his children?

Shouldt the father be legally obligated? (Despite the fact that woman don’t have that obligation)

I say yes, because the child’s right to have shelter and food, trumps any “gender inequality” that might rise from it.
Irrelevant for the OP …….. but no I don’t see any moral relevant difference.

If the fetus is not a human then abortion (or forcing someone to abort) shouldn’t be a big of a deal.

If the fetus is a human, the killing him would be absolutely wrong, in both cases.
The pregnant person is a human.

Forcing a person to be pregnant against their will is wrong.

Forcing them to end their pregnancy against their will is wrong.

I don't think you realize how much your arguments show your contempt for women (and trans men, if you think about them at all).
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
False equivalence.
The right of women to abort has to do with their rights to their own bodies.

.
Why can the man do whatever he wants with his own body?...........why can’t the man decide not to use his legs (his body), walk to the bank and make a deposit for the fanatical support of his children?
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
I think i answered those but i will rephrase them for you

The male was complicit in causing the pregnancy he should therefore take responsibility for his actions. Whether that is being a part of the decision to abort the child or help financially and morally support the child.

The woman has no choice in that obligation assuming no abortion
The woman always have a choice because abortion is always an option.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
False equivalence.
The right of women to abort has to do with their rights to their own bodies.

The sperm dad has just as much to say about the mother's body as a condemning evangelist does. Which is to say: nothing.

It's the woman's choice what happens to her own body.
Her body her choice...... until her choices affect someone else's life then it's different.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
So you seriously can't see a moral difference between:

- getting an abortion
- using financial coercion to force someone else into getting an abortion they don't want

Give your head a shake. This is a new low, even for you.
Allowing the man to walk away from financial responsibility does not equal using financial coercion to force abortion.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The pregnant person is a human.

Forcing a person to be pregnant against their will is wrong.

Forcing them to end their pregnancy against their will is wrong.

I don't think you realize how much your arguments show your contempt for women (and trans men, if you think about them at all).
Forcing them to end their pregnancy against their will is wrong.
But if the embryo is not a human, it shouldn’t be a big of a deal………….sure it would be “wrong” but it shouldn’t be a serious crime,

Pretty much like forcing a vegan woman to take some “non-vegan” medicine or forcing a woman to take a birth a control pill…….. sure it´s “wrong” to do it, after all it´s her body and she decides if she wants to take those pills, but nobody would consider it a serious crime
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I think i answered those but i will rephrase them for you

The male was complicit in causing the pregnancy he should therefore take responsibility for his actions. Whether that is being a part of the decision to abort the child or help financially and morally support the child.

Ok so the man has the obligation to pay for 50% of the Price of the abortion, or to do 50% of the paper work that implies to give the child to a foster family.

But if the woman doesn’t what to abort, nor give the child to adoption, does the man has the right to run away and not pay for financial support?




n[/QUOTE]
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ok so the man has the obligation to pay for 50% of the Price of the abortion, or to do 50% of the paper work that implies to give the child to a foster family.

But if the woman doesn’t what to abort, nor give the child to adoption, does the man has the right to run away and not pay for financial support?




n
[/QUOTE]

No. With or without an abortion he is the father. There ain't no getting away from that.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The woman gets the right to choose because gestation occurs within her own body. Like it or not, that gives her the right to choose if, how, and when this will occur. The rest of us may want to be in control of that, and get a say, but we aren't, and we shouldn't.

As to taking responsibility for the child's well-being after birth, that falls to both parents. As it should. The father or mother do not have to actively participate, but they are financially responsible just the same. So in answer to the OP question, I think "male abortion" is just an attempt at justifying a man refusing to take any responsibility for the life he's helped bring into existence.
I think the OP involves the father abandoning the child, even before it is born.
Is the mother not as responsible as the father?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
To make a long story short, a woman can abort because it doesn't harm anybody and involve only herself. A man cannot ''abort'' in such a fashion since it can hurt someone, more specifically a child. I would also like to note that giving money for a child's wellbeing isn't the same as being a child's father or mother. Nobody can force a man to be a father, but he might be forced to pay a certain amount to ensure the wellbeing a child he is responsible for.
How about the woman's decision to abort, harming the man and the child... Or does that not happen?
...and what about the man's parents? Grandparents to be are really in joyful expectation. Grandchildren mean a lot to them.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Sadly, it's not enforced, and the man can avoid it, if he wants. I think the rules should be changed in order to make it impossible for the man not to pay.
It depends on the law active in the country, off course
In any case, there is such a thing as alimentation, so certainly there are instances of where people are forced to pay up.
 
Top