Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

I have to admit, I've never actually asked myself that question before! (Then again, as a gay man, it's not likely to be top-of-mind much.) But it's a good question -- a very good question.

And on reflection, I would have to say that a man should have the same right as a woman -- to decide (at some reasonable period before birth) that he does not wish to be a parent, with all of those responsibilities. If he duly and properly notifies the woman (or if she does not even let him know that she's pregnant and planning to demand paternal support), then he should have the right not to be saddled with it.

the problem is that paternal support is the child´s right (not the woman’s right) why should the child suffer just because the woman didn’t told the father about the pregnancy? ........I would say that the correct thing to do is to give up “gender equality” for the sake of the child……………….the child’s right to have food and shelter trumps “gender equality”

 

[Neuropteron]

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?

Hi,
Sin without accountability, murder without punishment, sounds very enticing.

Is it wishful thinking ?

"For the true God will judge every deed...,as to whether it is good or evil"."(Solomon)

 

[leroy]

No.

agree

 

[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.

Oh. Can you please post a link to the verifiable data, which demonstrates that a fetus has no feeling, or is not conscious "during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation".
I can't find any.
Everywhere I look I see there is no consensus on this. Just various assumptions on probabilities.

Also, do you believe that it's okay to murder someone when they are unconscious?

 

[leroy]

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).

When you are at sleep due to the effect of anesthesia you have no consciousness, and you don’t feel pain………………so would it be ok to kill you while you are sleeping?

Should it be legal to kill an innocent sleeping person just because his existence is uncomfortable for you? …………… why can’t a mother kill his 4yo child while he is sleeping? What would be fundamentally different between that and killing an embryo?.........obviously the lack of conscience and the inability to feel pain are not good justification to kill innocent people otherwise it should be legal to kill people while they are sleeping under the effect of anesthesia

 

[Spiderman]

Your kind?

Im saying my many jobs I had, the longest was a year as a janitor. Most of my jobs only lasted a few months. 9 months ago, I was broken of a total and completely enslaving drug addiction, and my life revolving around my use, that dates back to freshman in high school.

The women I have had sex with have without exception had severe mental emotional problems and drug/alcohol abuse issues, and very impoverished environments.

Anyone with my criminal record and psychiatric abnormalities needs to error on the side of caution bringing children into this world, and the pain and suffering that child could go through in poverty, with a Dad who isn't a good example , or good for society, should strongly consider such things.

I should strongly consider: can I provide for the child financially? Will I pass addiction and mental illness on to the child? Will I be able to even be part of the child's life? Will I be a good role model? Will I be in a mental institution? Will I be behind bars? Will the child live a life of agony? Will the child hurt self or others?

Do those sound like unreasonable considerations?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

And of course, I do not disagree!

And perhaps both were pretty sure that it wasn't "the right time" for her, or thought that pregnancy doesn't happen with every conjugal visit, so maybe we'll get lucky. Or any number of other considerations.

But I still think the OP asks a question that deserves further thought. I am one of those who, while no fan of abortion, holds that -- for some time, at least -- the woman has the right to decide whether she will carry to term or not.

But then, as @Revoltingest hinted at, the male may well be brought before the courts -- with the appropriate DNA samples, of course, and be compelled to take on financial responsibility for nearly two decades. He would not have the same freedom of choice as the woman -- and that seems like an improper balance of rights and responsibilities, to me.

 

[leroy]

Sure the man should have a say but ultimately it is the womans body

Sure the man should have a say

That is nonsense. ………. If the embryo is not a human then the woman can do whatever she wants with the embryo, (just like she has the right to do whatever she wants bacteria, ameba , worms or whatever she might have in her body.


If the embryo is a human, then nobody should have the right to kill him and nobody has a say. (it´s wrogn to kill, period)

So in both cases the man doesn’t (or shouldn’t ) have a say

 

[ChristineM]

And of course, I do not disagree!

And perhaps both were pretty sure that it wasn't "the right time" for her, or thought that pregnancy doesn't happen with every conjugal visit, so maybe we'll get lucky. Or any number of other considerations.

But I still think the OP asks a question that deserves further thought. I am one of those who, while no fan of abortion, holds that -- for some time, at least -- the woman has the right to decide whether she will carry to term or not.

But then, as @Revoltingest hinted at, the male may well be brought before the courts -- with the appropriate DNA samples, of course, and be compelled to take on financial responsibility for nearly two decades. He would not have the same freedom of choice as the woman -- and that seems like an improper balance of rights and responsibilities, to me.

If the woman keeps the child then whether the man provides support or not the woman must physically support the child until old enough to support itself .

I say must support, there is (usually) no legal compunction and there are alternatives, (adoption for example) to do this but it is generally expected.

Raising a child is not cheap and no easy matter even with support from the father. It is my view that the woman invests far more in the child than money alone. She may for example have to give up work for at least a few years to nurture the child with the loss of income that involves at a time when money is much needed.

A woman raising a child has very little freedom of choice.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

Since women are the ones who get pregnant it's their choice.

 

[ChristineM]

That is nonsense. ………. If the embryo is not a human then the woman can do whatever she wants with the embryo, (just like she has the right to do whatever she wants bacteria, ameba , worms or whatever she might have in her body.


If the embryo is a human, then nobody should have the right to kill him and nobody has a say. (it´s wrogn to kill, period)

So in both cases the man doesn’t (or shouldn’t ) have a say

Dont bring emotion into this. Stick to the law and the law (depending on where you are) says the woman has choice.

Of course the the woman should give the man his say. That is not to say all women do, or all men want to but in my opinion life is an equal and shared partnership. You may think differently, that is not my problem

 

[epronovost]

Oh. Can you please post a link to the verifiable data, which demonstrates that a fetus has no feeling, or is not conscious "during the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy around 24 to 28 weeks of gestation".
I can't find any.
Everywhere I look I see there is no consensus on this. Just various assumptions on probabilities.

That's the period in which the portion of the brain responsible for the management of feelings, thought process and decision making, the cortex, is developing. If you cannot walk without legs, you cannot process emotions, feelings, sensations and thoughts in any recognizable and human way without those part of your brain.

Also, do you believe that it's okay to murder someone when they are unconscious?

No, but a fetus isn't unconscious either. It's without consciousness. It's not under a lapse of consciousness. It never had one to begin with. Iy doesn't have a will, desires, hopes, dreams, feelings or sensations of any kind (at least not in early stage of development). An unconscious person does. I would also like to mention that it's illegal to render a person completely unconscious without their consent and that consent is conditional to the actions you are about to commit.

 

[epronovost]

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.

Considering that a man doesn't carry any of burden associated with pregnancy nor any of the health risks all the while never being submitted to anything worst than a mother does, I fail to see any asymmetry.

On average, men who pay child support still don't spend nearly as much of their income, on average, on their child than the mothers themselves; that's without counting hours of chores and work associated with raising a child. Since men have far less at stake when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, it stands to reason that women have more authority and power over those. It doesn't mean that men should be powerless though and men should have access to free (or at least very cheap), safe and effective contraceptive methods.

In a sense I guess we could say its asymmetrical, but it's just and equitable. Justice and equity aren't always achieved by simple, blind equality.

 

[ppp]

I'm being hyperbolic, but I think we should accept that having sex can lead to having children and if one is not prepared for that, you'd best prepare. Even with contraception it happens. We can't take reproduction away from sex and one has to be cognisant each time one does it that it could lead to pregnancy; if one isn't prepared for that, I don't think one is prepared to have sex. I think abortion is murder so that's not an option for me.

It's only murder if it is illegal.
Do you think that a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term against her will?

 

[ppp]

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?

I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. The female's right to choose is based on bodily autonomy. The male does not have that standing, so that rationalizing argument does not apply.

 

[Revoltingest]

And of course, I do not disagree!

And perhaps both were pretty sure that it wasn't "the right time" for her, or thought that pregnancy doesn't happen with every conjugal visit, so maybe we'll get lucky. Or any number of other considerations.

But I still think the OP asks a question that deserves further thought. I am one of those who, while no fan of abortion, holds that -- for some time, at least -- the woman has the right to decide whether she will carry to term or not.

But then, as @Revoltingest hinted at, the male may well be brought before the courts -- with the appropriate DNA samples, of course, and be compelled to take on financial responsibility for nearly two decades. He would not have the same freedom of choice as the woman -- and that seems like an improper balance of rights and responsibilities, to me.

DNA samples aren't even necessary. One guy I
know was held responsible for child support
because she said the kid was his, & he believed
it briefly. But by the time DNA evidence otherwise
was tested, his fate was sealed.
He was the kind of guy who deserved to have the
system kick him in the teeth. (A violent corrupt cop.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering that a man doesn't carry any of burden associated with pregnancy nor any of the health risks all the while never being submitted to anything worst than a mother does, I fail to see any asymmetry.

You noted the burden of one side, but not the other.
It's reasonable to compare both. While not equivalent,
both burdens are potentially very significant.

On average, men who pay child support still don't spend nearly as much of their income, on average, on their child than the mothers themselves; that's without counting hours of chores and work associated with raising a child. Since men have far less at stake when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, it stands to reason that women have more authority and power over those. It doesn't mean that men should be powerless though and men should have access to free (or at least very cheap), safe and effective contraceptive methods.

You've not made a quantitative argument about what
average means. But I don't see that as necessary
when discussing rights that can have wildly varying
disparate effect.

In a sense I guess we could say its asymmetrical, but it's just and equitable. Justice and equity aren't always achieved by simple, blind equality.

I see current law as inequitable.

 

[leroy]

I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. The female's right to choose is based on bodily autonomy. The male does not have that standing, so that rationalizing argument does not apply.

By that logic, why can’t men descide not to be feathers and run away without paying “child support”?

Why can’t the man say “hey I don’t care if you abort, give the child in to adoption, or raise him and be his mother, but I don’t whant to be a father so do not expect support from my part”

Should the man have the legal right to do that?

 

[ppp]

By that logic, why can’t men descide not to be feathers and run away without paying “child support”?

Why can’t the man say “hey I don’t care if you abort, give the child in to adoption, or raise him and be his mother, but I don’t whant to be a father so do not expect support from my part”

Should the man have the legal right to do that?

You are just saying 'by that logic' without establishing a logical connection to the bodily autonomy argument.

 

[Kooky]

When you are at sleep due to the effect of anesthesia you have no consciousness, and you don’t feel pain………………so would it be ok to kill you while you are sleeping?

Do you believe that a two months old fetus is literally a fully developed person who is simply suffering from a temporary bout of unconsciousness?