Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Guitar's Cry]

The question in the post is: should men have the right to abandon the child (and the woman) without paying any sort of pension or child support?

If the father doesn’t want be a father can he avoid the responsibility of taking care of the child?

No. Birthing a baby is no small medical impact on the human having it, and that impact effects income, and income effects wellbeing. Someone has to help provide financial assistance to ensure a child (and mother's) wellbeing, both in terms of medical care, and the various needs related to raising a child in the 21st century.

 

[ChristineM]

Well assume a "normal" situation .... a 30yo man with a normal job and economic stability had sex, got pregnant but he doesn't whant to be a father.........should he have the legal right to avoid the responsibility of being a father?

No.

 

[nPeace]

I have no idea and don't really care, i advised that "Already mentioned,

I don't really care.

its it not always possible to say no".

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't really care.

Perhaps i should have been more precise. I don't care why you said it but you said it in a public forum. And in that same public forum i replied. Sorry if it upset you so much.


There is that more understandable?

 

[Kfox]

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.

Where are men not forced to pay child support?

 

[Kfox]

No it isn't.

If it were, then I would be able to force you to donate a kidney as the only hypothetical match to save a loved-one.

After all, if your choice is to not donate, then this choice affects someone else's life. And in your own words: then it's different.

I suspect you've misunderstood me. My point is if a woman chooses to have the baby, that choice will force men to pay child support for the next 18 years

 

[stvdv]

So the woman should not open up... since she don't want it... the baby I mean ?

Very good point...If they suddenly would impose this rule I think quite a few (wo)men might get upset or worse

 

[ChristineM]

I suspect you've misunderstood me. My point is if a woman chooses to have the baby, that choice will force men to pay child support for the next 18 years

And if the man had not impregnated the woman then he would not have to pay child support for 18 years

 

[Kfox]

The fact that you ask this question shows how little you have thought this through. Either that or you really have black and white vision.

You are phrasing this as an either/or thing, but it is inevitably going to be contextual.
So the answer to your question is: sometimes he will and sometimes he won't.

This would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, because it all depends on the specifics of the situation.

can you give a scenario when a man does not have to pay child support?

 

[nPeace]

Perhaps i should have been more precise. I don't care why you said it but you said it in a public forum. And in that same public forum i replied. Sorry if it upset you so much.


There is that more understandable?

Upset me? I'm not a baby CM.
You responded to a question posted to someone else, and then admit that you don't care why the person asked the question, but you want them to care about your statement... which has no bearing on what they said in response to someone else... ? Seriously.
I have been on these forums for over 3 years CM. I haven't just met you.

 

[epronovost]

How about the woman's decision to abort, harming the man and the child... Or does that not happen?

It cannot physically harm a man that a woman is having an abortion. It can hurt his feelings, but those feelings aren't more important than the feelings of the woman in addition to her physical, social and economical wellbeing. Plus, hurting feelings is generally legal. As for the child, abortion occurs before the birth of any child. You cannot harm a underdeveloped fetus neither a zygote or embryo since they aren't conscious yet since their neural system is still too underdeveloped. You have to wait during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation to see the first signs of consciousness and sensitivity. At that point, elective abortions are already illegal in pretty much all jurisdictions and medically rather dangerous (well about as much as childbirth).

...and what about the man's parents? Grandparents to be are really in joyful expectation. Grandchildren mean a lot to them.

The same apply than for the man. Their expectations were misplaced. It hurts, but it doesn't cause harm.

 

[nPeace]

Very good point...If they suddenly would impose this rule I think quite a few (wo)men might get upset or worse

You mean, not to open up, or not to open up if they don't want a baby ?
That's right, you would be taking away their license to murder... whenever they want.

 

[leroy]

What the aitch are you talking about?
Care to rephrase that in something comprehensible where you don't try to be condescending and judgemental?

The only point that I tried to make is that bodily autonomy is important, but it is not the most important value…………if your alternatives are “bodily autonomy” or kill an “innocent person” the second trumps the first.

 

[nPeace]

It cannot physically harm a man that a woman is having an abortion. It can hurt his feelings, but those feelings aren't more important than the feelings of the woman in addition to her physical, social and economical wellbeing. Plus, hurting feelings is generally legal. As for the child, abortion occurs before the birth of any child. You cannot harm a underdeveloped fetus neither a zygote or embryo since they aren't conscious yet since their neural system is still too underdeveloped. You have to wait during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation to see the first signs of consciousness and sensitivity. At that point, elective abortions are already illegal in pretty much all jurisdictions and medically rather dangerous (well about as much as childbirth).



The same apply than for the man. Their expectations were misplaced. It hurts, but it doesn't cause harm.

Since you believe that, tell me how the man abandoning the child physically harms the child.
I have seen physical damage occur through emotional damage.
If you doubt that, ask any physician. Stress kills.
So yes, she can cause the man, and his parents physical harm.

 

[stvdv]

You mean, not to open up, or not to open up if they don't want a baby ?
That's right, you would be taking away their license to murder... whenever they want.

I meant "not open up, unless you want to create a baby", not many are able or are happy if they must control sex

People are lucky this is not (yet) a covid rule (although 1.5 meter distance should cover it)

 

[Revoltingest]

It cannot physically harm a man that a woman is having an abortion. It can hurt his feelings, but those feelings aren't more important than the feelings of the woman in addition to her physical, social and economical wellbeing.

There is also the significant possibility of being required
to support the child & mother for 18+ years. Obligation
with no right regarding choosing birth vs abortion is big
asymmetry of rights.

 

[ChristineM]

Upset me? I'm not a baby CM.
You responded to a question posted to someone else, and then admit that you don't care why the person asked the question, but you want them to care about your statement... which has no bearing on what they said in response to someone else... ? Seriously.
I have been on these forums for over 3 years CM. I haven't just met you.

I responded to a statement in a PUBLIC thread that you made

And i admit that I don't care WHY YOU SAID IT but i care that you did say it.

Wtg are you making so much of a simple comments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And if the man had not impregnated the woman then he would not have to pay child support for 18 years

But setting aside the issue of rape, if the woman had kept the aspirin firmly between her knees -- or simply said "no," for that matter -- he would not have impregnated her.

 

[ChristineM]

But setting aside the issue of rape, if the woman had kept the aspirin firmly between her knees -- or simply said "no," for that matter -- he would not have impregnated her.

It takes two to tango. Assuming consent on both sides then both sides are equally responsible.

Yes the female could have said no, equally so could the male