Male Abortions - Gender Equality

[Sauropolis]

What do you think of the concept of "male abortions"? Not in the sense that the man can force the mother to have an abortion, but that he can instead forfeit his interest and obligations to the unborn child? Women can. If a woman can decide she is not financially capable or of the maturity level to have a child, why must a man be denied such a right?

"Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.[80] Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'."

I'd like to see what NSG believes.

Are men held to a higher standard to support a child regardless of their capabilities or situation? Should men possess the same rights here that women do?

[Rolamec]

I favor it 100%. Equality and all that crap. Male suffrage! Ban alcohol and all that other progressive crap from the 20th century.

[Fartsniffage]

Men do have the same rights as women.

They have the right to stop before their part in the procreation process before it is complete.

[Big Jim P]

One point to note: men invest far less in impregnating a woman, than a woman does carrying a child to term.

[Caecili]

Ignore this post. Anger was had when I made it.

[Fartsniffage]

One point to note: men invest far less in impregnating a woman, than a woman does carrying a child to term.

Oh I don't know. Paying a high class hooker to go bareback can be quite costly.

Or so I've heard...

[Rolamec]

Men do have the same rights as women.

They have the right to stop before their part in the procreation process is complete.

Women also don't have to take part in sex. I agree why should women be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, but not men? Is it a males fault that he cannot get pregnant? Why should a woman be allowed to make a mistake and "end" it, while a man who makes such a mistake is obliged to support it? After all isn't feminism about achieving equality, not special treatment?

[Sorratsin]

Men do have the same rights as women.

They have the right to stop before their part in the procreation process before it is complete.

Condoms do break you know.

[Nazi Israel Land]

I believe that there are only three ways to give both genders equality when it comes to parental rights.

1) Make abortions illegal. Both men and women have to dealwithit.gif.
2) Make abortions require the consent of the father. Both men and women would be able to trap each other in parenthood.
3) Give men the male 'abortion'. Both men and women have a way to terminate all interests, rights, and responsibilities to the child.

Both options 1 & 2 would end in women getting back alley abortions, so 3 is really the only logical answer

[Caecili]

Men do have the same rights as women.

They have the right to stop before their part in the procreation process before it is complete.

Condoms do break you know.

And birth control fails. People have the responsibility to take care of their messes and to fix their mistakes.

[Big Jim P]

One point to note: men invest far less in impregnating a woman, than a woman does carrying a child to term.

Oh I don't know. Paying a high class hooker to go bareback can be quite costly.

Or so I've heard...

I wouldn't know.

[Sorratsin]

One point to note: men invest far less in impregnating a woman, than a woman does carrying a child to term.

True, but that doesn't make the 20 odd years and thousands of dollars spent raising the kid irrelevant.

[Fartsniffage]

Women also don't have to take part in sex. I agree why should women be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, but not men? Is it a males fault that he cannot get pregnant? Why should a woman be allowed to make a mistake and "end" it, while a man who makes such a mistake is obliged to support it? After all isn't feminism about achieving equality, not special treatment?

In what way is the process being made unequal by the actions of man?

Procreation naturally requires a longer commitment from the female than the male. Nature gives them a longer amount of time to make a decision.

[Norstal]

Yes, I believe males can have no part in the child if the male first advise the female to get an abortion.

This means however, that the male can have no part in caring the child, AT ALL. None whatsoever.

[Fartsniffage]

Men do have the same rights as women.

They have the right to stop before their part in the procreation process before it is complete.

Condoms do break you know.

Chainmail condoms don't.

[Caecili]

One point to note: men invest far less in impregnating a woman, than a woman does carrying a child to term.

True, but that doesn't make the 20 odd years and thousands of dollars spent raising the kid irrelevant.

The women spend those same 20 odd years and thousands of dollars. Your point?

[Sorratsin]

Condoms do break you know.

Chainmail condoms don't.

Riveted for her pleasure?

[Sauropolis]

Condoms do break you know.

And birth control fails. People have the responsibility to take care of their messes and to fix their mistakes.

Which is why if one parent has the option to back out of that responsibility, why should the other be forced into that responsibility.

Yes, I believe males can have no part in the child if the male first advise the female to get an abortion.

This means however, that the male can have no part in caring the child, AT ALL. None whatsoever.

I believe it is implied that the putative father would forfeit all rights with the child by forfeiting all obligations.

[Caecili]

Yes, I believe males can have no part in the child if the male first advise the female to get an abortion.

This means however, that the male can have no part in caring the child, AT ALL. None whatsoever.

THIS. If the male suggests that the female get an abortion, and she refuses, he should be allowed to cut ties with the child. Then and only then.

[Rolamec]

Women also don't have to take part in sex. I agree why should women be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, but not men? Is it a males fault that he cannot get pregnant? Why should a woman be allowed to make a mistake and "end" it, while a man who makes such a mistake is obliged to support it? After all isn't feminism about achieving equality, not special treatment?

In what way is the process being made unequal by the actions of man?

Procreation naturally requires a longer commitment from the female than the male. Nature gives them a longer amount of time to make a decision.

But why is the male to blame, is it not nature? After all he has no choice in the matter. If both a male and female make a mistake equally, should they not be allowed to terminate it, equally?

[Sorratsin]

True, but that doesn't make the 20 odd years and thousands of dollars spent raising the kid irrelevant.

The women spend those same 20 odd years and thousands of dollars. Your point?

That the 20 odd years and thousands of dollars that men spend raising kids aren't irrelevant just because the mother does the same thing and also goes through the pain of pregnancy and birth.

[Wilgrove]

What do you think of the concept of "male abortions"? Not in the sense that the man can force the mother to have an abortion, but that he can instead forfeit his interest and obligations to the unborn child? Women can. If a woman can decide she is not financially capable or of the maturity level to have a child, why must a man be denied such a right?

"Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.[80] Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'."

I'd like to see what NSG believes.

Are men held to a higher standard to support a child regardless of their capabilities or situation? Should men possess the same rights here that women do?

Eh the only problem I see with this, is the fact that it'll allow deadbeat dads and assholes fuck women without condom without consequences. Then when the child is born and the mother (rightly IMHO) sues for child support, the deadbeat dad can simply sign away his right and be free of any real responsibility.

The ONLY way this could work, if BOTH parties agree to the "Male abortion".

[Fartsniffage]

But why is the male to blame, is it not nature? After all he has no choice in the matter. If both a male and female make a mistake equally, should they not be allowed to terminate it, equally?

They are allowed to terminated it equally, roughly half of their way through their contribution to the process.

[The Norwegian Blue]

The law is perfectly fair on this issue. Any person can make medical decisions about their own body. Any person can cease their body's participation in reproduction at any time. And any person who chooses not to cease their body's participation in reproduction is responsible for making sure the children born of that reproduction have their basic needs met. Allowing men to "opt out" of the last step has nothing to do with legal equality - it's about trying to use the law to make up for biological inequality. Therefore, I'd support this only if it comes with the addendum that any man who "opts out" must have a melon-sized object surgically implanted in his rectum, carry it there for several months, and then push it out, with all the medical risks and pain that entails. After all, it'd hardly be fair to "correct" the inequality that women's bodies participate in reproduction for nine months longer than men's do and thus that women have more time in which to choose to end their participation in reproduction without also "correcting" the inequality that men's participation in reproduction is a hell of a lot more fun and less risky.

(Actually, I still wouldn't support that plan, because children who already exist need to be fed, no matter how "unfair" someone finds it, and I'm not willing to let them starve because biology is a big meanie-pants, but I certainly wouldn't support attempting to use the law to address biology unless we at LEAST do it evenly.)

[Wilgrove]

Men do have the same rights as women.

They have the right to stop before their part in the procreation process is complete.

Women also don't have to take part in sex. I agree why should women be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, but not men? Is it a males fault that he cannot get pregnant? Why should a woman be allowed to make a mistake and "end" it, while a man who makes such a mistake is obliged to support it? After all isn't feminism about achieving equality, not special treatment?

Because the woman owns her own body. If and when men can get pregnant, I'd fully support men having the right to abort his own fetus.