Should Men Have a Say?

[ktay88]

I recently stumbled across this article and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it?

Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue

What do you think about men having a voice in the abortion debate if they themselves are not fathers or fathers to be?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wonder if its a good idea to allow a male to be legally be able to voice his objection to the pregnancy and request an abortion. If the woman disagrees, he should be freed from child support obligations.

 

[RightinNYC]

I recently stumbled across this article and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it?

Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue

What do you think about men having a voice in the abortion debate if they themselves are not fathers or fathers to be?

On the issue of whether a man should be required to consent in order for his coconspirator to get an abortion, of course not.

On the issue of whether men should be allowed to voice their opinions re: abortion policy and vote on laws like everyone else, of course.

 

[aps]

I recently stumbled across this article and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it?

Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue

What do you think about men having a voice in the abortion debate if they themselves are not fathers or fathers to be?

Yes, they can have a say. It's how much probative value we women want to give them that matters. A man, other than the father of my child, telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body annoys the crap out of me. Excuse me but your opinion on what I do with my own body is dismissed.

 

[ktay88]

I wonder if its a good idea to allow a male to be legally be able to voice his objection to the pregnancy and request an abortion. If the woman disagrees, he should be freed from child support obligations.

To me that's like saying if a man refuses his wife or girlfriend's request for him to get a vasectomy that she should be free of from all expenses if she should get pregnant.

I think that if people are close enough to be intimate, and mature enough to be having sex in the first place, that they should also be adult enough to realize that the thoughts of the person whose body is going to be going through the ringer should carry a bit more weight.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

They had a say before they had sex

They do not get to tell a woman what to do with their body, anymore then the woman gets to tell the man what to do with his.


Overall if he did not want to become a father he should not have had sex.

If he is upset at the woman having an abortion, he should not have had sex that resulted in conception

 

[thatguymd]

I recently stumbled across this article and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it?

Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue

What do you think about men having a voice in the abortion debate if they themselves are not fathers or fathers to be?

Wow! That article was one of the poorest presentations of what was already one of the worst arguements I've seen.

My highlights were well intentioned fathers still not doing much of anything worthwhile with childcare and most pro-life conservatives rushing their daughters to abort an unwanted child should the need arise. I was skeptical that statements like that were true until she presented a giant mountain of concrete evidence.

The arguement is a logical fallacy on its face. You shouldn't need to know the source of an arguement to know if it is true or not.

That's the problem. An identical arguement presented by a woman doesn't give the arguement any more value.

This is always brought up, however, because it makes sense that men shouldn't have an opinion if you are already pro-choice. This stance just flows from being pro-choice. It does not prove the pro-choice stance in any way.

 

[Caedon]

They had a say before they had sex

They do not get to tell a woman what to do with their body, anymore then the woman gets to tell the man what to do with his.

I'm guessing you've never heard of child support. The woman certainly gets to tell the man what to do with his body. She gets to tell him that 25% of his paycheck [that he earns with his work/body] now goes to her. Personally, I'm fine with that but the attitude that women can **** like crazy with no consequences but men can't is absolute bull****.

Overall if he did not want to become a father he should not have had sex.

Funny, because when someone says "if she did not want to become a mother, she should not have had sex" everyone starts to bitch about women's lib and such. I'm so glad that the press for equality has brought us to the point where women are allowed to be whores but men aren't.

If he is upset at the woman having an abortion, he should not have had sex that resulted in conception

If she is upset at the thought of him not supporting the child, she should not have had sex that resulted in conception. See what I did there?

---

Personally, I'm against abortion, unequivocally. I believe it's murder. Furthermore, I think guys who believe they can stick their dicks anywhere that's warm and wet with no consequences are pieces of trash. If you are man enough to make a baby, you should be man enough to support it.

However, that doesn't mean that I won't point out the rank hypocrisy in the current crowd of libby patsies running around about how only women should have the rights of decision. If there is a decision, then the man should be allowed to decide as well. If you are going to say 'then don't have sex' to one gender, you must say it to the other.

After all, don't the pro-choicers want equality? Hmmm?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I'm guessing you've never heard of child support. The woman certainly gets to tell the man what to do with his body. She gets to tell him that 25% of his paycheck [that he earns with his work/body] now goes to her. Personally, I'm fine with that but the attitude that women can **** like crazy with no consequences but men can't is absolute bull****.

The term is child support, she is having to support the child and so will he

Funny, because when someone says "if she did not want to become a mother, she should not have had sex" everyone starts to bitch about women's lib and such. I'm so glad that the press for equality has brought us to the point where women are allowed to be whores but men aren't.

Both can be whores, one has the chance of getting pregnant the other doesnt. One has the option of ending a pregnancy, the other doesnt.
The consequences of being a whore is not biologically the same for men or for women, and as such the specifics of what choices they get to make as a result of getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant are different

If she is upset at the thought of him not supporting the child, she should not have had sex that resulted in conception. See what I did there?

Yep, and too bad for her or him the courts would force him/her to pay child support for the choice they made

-

Personally, I'm against abortion, unequivocally. I believe it's murder. Furthermore, I think guys who believe they can stick their dicks anywhere that's warm and wet with no consequences are pieces of trash. If you are man enough to make a baby, you should be man enough to support it.

However, that doesn't mean that I won't point out the rank hypocrisy in the current crowd of libby patsies running around about how only women should have the rights of decision. If there is a decision, then the man should be allowed to decide as well. If you are going to say 'then don't have sex' to one gender, you must say it to the other.

After all, don't the pro-choicers want equality? Hmmm?

When technology evolves to allow men to carry a fetus to term then men should have the ability to have a say in whether a women gets an abortion or not (instead of an abortion just transplant the fetus to the man.

Untill then men should not be telling a women what they can or can not do to their body.

 

[Goshin]

We've beat this topic to death several times, but oh well let's go round again...

I think that the current situation, where it is (legally) entirely up to the woman whether to abort or not, and whether to force the man to pay child support if she choses not to, is by far too one-sided.

As another poster mentioned, the fact that a woman can decide to carry the baby and have it, even if the man didn't want it, then force him to pay child support for 18 years (from the labor of his body) is not being recognized for what it is: the same sort of infringement on a man's "reproductive choices" and "control of his body" that so many women decry when someone makes a statement against abortion.

Think about it... pro-choicers scream bloodly murder at the very idea that a woman might be required to allow an unborn child the use of a part of her bodily resources for a period of NINE MONTHS, in order to avoid the unborn baby's demise. Yet most of the same persons are perfectly ok with a man having to expend a large part of his resources for eighteen YEARS... even though he has NO legal say in whether the baby was born or aborted.

This is simply far too one-sided. Until there is some kind of middle ground reached on this issue, I find the "i can do what i want with my body" arguments a smidge hypocritical.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

We've beat this topic to death several times, but oh well let's go round again...

I think that the current situation, where it is (legally) entirely up to the woman whether to abort or not, and whether to force the man to pay child support if she choses not to, is by far too one-sided.

As another poster mentioned, the fact that a woman can decide to carry the baby and have it, even if the man didn't want it, then force him to pay child support for 18 years (from the labor of his body) is not being recognized for what it is: the same sort of infringement on a man's "reproductive choices" and "control of his body" that so many women decry when someone makes a statement against abortion.

Think about it... pro-choicers scream bloodly murder at the very idea that a woman might be required to allow an unborn child the use of a part of her bodily resources for a period of NINE MONTHS, in order to avoid the unborn baby's demise. Yet most of the same persons are perfectly ok with a man having to expend a large part of his resources for eighteen YEARS... even though he has NO legal say in whether the baby was born or aborted.

This is simply far too one-sided. Until there is some kind of middle ground reached on this issue, I find the "i can do what i want with my body" arguments a smidge hypocritical.

Of course it is one sided

For 9 or so months only one person is pregnant.

The man can not get an abortion as he is not carring the fetus, nor can he decide to carry it to term as he is not carrig the fetus

At the end of the 9 months (or before if an abortion is performed) it is no longer one sided. Both will have to pay to support the child unless it is given up for adoption. He can go to the courts to become the primary care giver and have the women pay child support.

But for 9 or so months the man is SOL in making any determinations regarding whether the pregnancy is going to be terminated or brought to term.

That is because he is not pregnant

 

[Caedon]

The term is child support, she is having to support the child and so will he

Yet when he wants to support the child and will even take full custody of the child upon birth, she still gets the right to pay some 'doc' to insert a machine that will slowly rip the child into pieces.

Makes perfect sense. Oh wait, no it doesn't. It's horribly hypocrisy, made worse by the subject matter at hand.

Both can be whores, one has the chance of getting pregnant the other doesnt. One has the option of ending a pregnancy, the other doesnt.

The man could end the pregnancy - he could force the woman to take an abortifacient. Of course, then the law would rightfully see that he had done wrong. My point is that women's lib and the pro-choicers have created a special class of citizen where women can **** around as much as they want, get out of it by terminating a life, or choose to stick the guy with monthly child support bills for the next 18 years. The situation isn't just. Of course, as soon as some of the 'progrettthhhhives' read that, they will immediately start jumping up and down in their mother's basement, arguing that the man shouldn't have had sex in the first place if he didn't want a child.

I agree - neither should the woman. Period.

The consequences of being a whore is not biologically the same for men or for women, and as such the specifics of what choices they get to make as a result of getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant are different

Biologically? That's a red herring and you know it. The consequences aren't the same for men as for women. Women can sleep around, pop a pill, or go see the creepy doctor and then have no lasting responsibilities. Men, on the other hand, can engage in the exact same behavior and have the next 18 years [minimum] of their lives irrevocably changed. Child support, here we go!

When technology evolves to allow men to carry a fetus to term then men should have the ability to have a say in whether a women gets an abortion or not (instead of an abortion just transplant the fetus to the man.

Untill then men should not be telling a women what they can or can not do to their body.

What a mind-bogglingly stupid and insipid response. If a man can't tell a woman to get an abortion, then she can't tell him to hand over a significant portion of his paycheck. That would be 'fair' to both parties.

---

Before some of you limp-wristed internet warriors get your panties in a bunch, I fully support the notion of child support.

I simply find rank hypocrisy and gross arrogance in the current set up of the legal system and abortions. Women aren't equal - they are now a protected and special class of citizen in terms of abortion/child support.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yet when he wants to support the child and will even take full custody of the child upon birth, she still gets the right to pay some 'doc' to insert a machine that will slowly rip the child into pieces.

Makes perfect sense. Oh wait, no it doesn't. It's horribly hypocrisy, made worse by the subject matter at hand.



The man could end the pregnancy - he could force the woman to take an abortifacient. Of course, then the law would rightfully see that he had done wrong. My point is that women's lib and the pro-choicers have created a special class of citizen where women can **** around as much as they want, get out of it by terminating a life, or choose to stick the guy with monthly child support bills for the next 18 years. The situation isn't just. Of course, as soon as some of the 'progrettthhhhives' read that, they will immediately start jumping up and down in their mother's basement, arguing that the man shouldn't have had sex in the first place if he didn't want a child.

If she keeps it she will be supporting it for 18 years as well not just the man. Nothing unfair about that

I agree - neither should the woman. Period.



Biologically? That's a red herring and you know it. The consequences aren't the same for men as for women. Women can sleep around, pop a pill, or go see the creepy doctor and then have no lasting responsibilities. Men, on the other hand, can engage in the exact same behavior and have the next 18 years [minimum] of their lives irrevocably changed. Child support, here we go!



What a mind-bogglingly stupid and insipid response. If a man can't tell a woman to get an abortion, then she can't tell him to hand over a significant portion of his paycheck. That would be 'fair' to both parties.

She isnt, the government is telling him that he is responsible for his child
---

Before some of you limp-wristed internet warriors get your panties in a bunch, I fully support the notion of child support.

I simply find rank hypocrisy and gross arrogance in the current set up of the legal system and abortions. Women aren't equal - they are now a protected and special class of citizen in terms of abortion/child support.

The women are equal, they are free to do what they want with their bodies so are men

 

[misterman]

We've beat this topic to death several times, but oh well let's go round again...

I think that the current situation, where it is (legally) entirely up to the woman whether to abort or not, and whether to force the man to pay child support if she choses not to, is by far too one-sided.

As another poster mentioned, the fact that a woman can decide to carry the baby and have it, even if the man didn't want it, then force him to pay child support for 18 years (from the labor of his body) is not being recognized for what it is: the same sort of infringement on a man's "reproductive choices" and "control of his body" that so many women decry when someone makes a statement against abortion.

Think about it... pro-choicers scream bloodly murder at the very idea that a woman might be required to allow an unborn child the use of a part of her bodily resources for a period of NINE MONTHS, in order to avoid the unborn baby's demise. Yet most of the same persons are perfectly ok with a man having to expend a large part of his resources for eighteen YEARS... even though he has NO legal say in whether the baby was born or aborted.

This is simply far too one-sided. Until there is some kind of middle ground reached on this issue, I find the "i can do what i want with my body" arguments a smidge hypocritical.

Sorry, but biology gives the man a five minute decision window (or however long the sex takes) and the woman a nine-month one. That's just the way it is. He had his shot to decline to be a parent first. Once he donates his sperm, it's not his body any more. Once a baby is born, they're both parents and equally responsible.

 

[Goshin]

If she keeps it she will be supporting it for 18 years as well not just the man. Nothing unfair about that She isnt, the government is telling him that he is responsible for his child
---


The women are equal, they are free to do what they want with their bodies so are men

You are willfully ignoring the facts which prove the "playing field is not level".

Situation 1: Woman has sex with some man. She gets pregnant. She gets to choose whether to have an abortion; if she wants one, the man has no say; therefore she chooses whether he becomes a father or not. If she has the child, she can decide to keep it or give it up for adoption. If she decides to keep it, she can choose to name the father and make him pay child support for the next 18 years. She makes all the choices.

Situation 2: Actually the same situation, but from the man's perspective. He has sex with some woman. She calls him next month and tells him she is pregnant. She will chose whether the baby is born or aborted; he has no legal say. If the baby is born, she will decide whether to put it up for adoption or not; if they are not married, his rights in the adoption decision range from slim to none. If she chooses to keep the child, he gets to pay child support for 18 years whether he wanted to be a father or not. She makes all the choices, HE MAKES NONE, even though this child has half his chromosomes, even though her decisions determine whether he will be a father or not, whether he will be paying a large chunk of his income in support for 18 yrs or not.

The same people who will say that the man shouldn't have had sex with her if he didn't want to risk paying 18 years of child support, are the same ones that will have a fit if someone dares suggest that the woman shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to endure 9 months of pregnancy.

18 years. 9 months.

It is self-evidently one-sided. If you can't see that, it is because you do not wish to.

 

[Caedon]

If she keeps it she will be supporting it for 18 years as well not just the man. Nothing unfair about that

Except that her choice controls his 'fate'. That is not just.

The women are equal, they are free to do what they want with their bodies so are men

Wrong, on every account.

If the woman chooses to have sex, she has several avenues to then escape responsibility:

• Immediately take an over-the-counter pill
• Have an abortion
• Give the child up for adoption

If the man chooses to have sex, he has one option to then escape responsibility:

• Break the law

---

Yet here we are, with you insisting (despite clear evidence to the contrary) that everything is fair and just and hunky dory.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Problem solved :mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

Problem solved :mrgreen:

I really shouldn't laugh, but dang that's funny. :mrgreen:

 

[justabubba]

if the guy is carrying the zygote in his own body then by all means he gets to have a say
if not, no

 

[molten_dragon]

My thoughts on the subject are thus.

A man should not be able to force a woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want it or prevent her from having one if she does.

If a man gets a woman pregnant and decides he doesn't want to be a father, then if she wants to keep the baby, he should be allowed to legally absolve himself of all rights and responsibilities to that child if he so chooses.

Men should absolutely be allowed a say in the abortion debate and any abortion legislation that is passed in this country.

 

[Panache]

If men choose not to use their bodies to support offspring that they didn't want, that should be their decision, and they shouldn't be punished for it. Why is it ok for women to tell men what to do with their bodies and not the other way around?

 

[Laila]

I recently stumbled across this article and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it?

Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue

What do you think about men having a voice in the abortion debate if they themselves are not fathers or fathers to be?

Men should have a say and a opinion but no legal power to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Saying that, Men should also have the ability of opting out of paying child support if the women chooses to not have an Abortion and keeps the child without his support. It works both ways.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Men should have a say and a opinion but no legal power to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Saying that, Men should also have the ability of opting out of paying child support if the women chooses to not have an Abortion and keeps the child without his support. It works both ways.

To me that seems to be a fair compromise. Except I think abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control

 

[Laila]

To me that seems to be a fair compromise. Except I think abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control

I don't think anyone supports it being used as a birth control.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think anyone supports it being used as a birth control.

Looking at a variety of sources, (both pro choice and pro life) they all seem to average at about 1 mil abortions per year in the US. So someone is using them as birth control since there cannot be that many birth defects and rapes.

I am not going to condemn these people as evil since I do not believe abortion is murder, it shines the light on the fact that we, as a society, have a lot more work to do to get the issue of unwanted pregnancy under better control.