Male Abortions - Gender Equality

[Caecili]

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.

So you're saying that the man should be allowed to leave all of that to the mother, no assistance whatsoever?
I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

[Sauropolis]

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.

Flip the genders around and the same has been said about "sluts" being able to have sex and then abort the child. No consequences.

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

If both parties have to agree, it still restricts the right of the putative father to the decisions of the mother. Hardly equality.

[Seperate Vermont]

Equal Rights, Different Contexts.

Ergo, "Equal but Different".

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Terminating a pregnancy isn't about absolving oneself of legal responsibility. Terminating a pregnancy is about control over one's own body. When a man can bear children, they can exercise the same control over their body that women do.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

No, they can't, but they can also completely choose to have nothing to do with the child.

[Sorratsin]

(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.)

Why not have the state support the kid? That way men aren't forced to support something they attempted to prevent in good faith due to fraud or their partner's religious superstitions.

[Wilgrove]

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.

Flip the genders around and the same has been said about "sluts" being able to have sex and then abort the child. No consequences.

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

If both parties have to agree, it still restricts the right of the putative father to the decisions of the mother. Hardly equality.

But women invest MORE than the man does when it comes to incubation of the child, and giving birth to it. ANYONE can be a sperm donor. Have you ever heard the term "fuck and chuck"?

The "Male abortion" problem is that it's too wide open to being abused by deadbeats and assholes. There has to be a REAL reason as to why the father is signing away his right, not "LOL! I AIN'T TAKIN' CARE OF THAT BITCH'S CHILD!"

[Rokartian States]

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.

But they don't have the right to stop afterwards.

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

How so?

I firmly believe that it is the mother's right to do whatever she wishes with her little human parasite. But the burden of conception is always on the father, and they have an obligation to support their little DNA bundle.

So, a double standard?

Single mothers have it hard enough without giving the fathers the option to leave them on their own completely.

Single fathers exist.

Condoms do break you know.

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

Do you oppose abortions, then?

[Norstal]

Terminating a pregnancy isn't about absolving oneself of legal responsibility. Terminating a pregnancy is about control over one's own body. When a man can bear children, they can exercise the same control over their body that women do.

Woah, a post by LG that has no humor in it!?

No, they can't, but they can also completely choose to have nothing to do with the child.

Yes. It's not like there can be a law forcing men to be with their kids, I think. It's all obligatory if anything.

[Big Jim P]

No, they can't, but they can also completely choose to have nothing to do with the child.

That would be punishing the child, the only innocent party to the whole situation.

[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.

But they don't have the right to stop afterwards.

Nor do women.

They call that homicide.

[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?

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.

But they can't, nature isn't fair. So why should a male be blamed for the cruelty of it towards women? Sex, if consensual, can be a mistake without protection. Yet, it is a mistake that both the male and female agreed to beforehand. I guess I'm curious why should the male be punished, when nature is why women can get pregnant. It's not fair to the male. It's not his fault he can't get pregnant. Both took part in the mistake equally, regardless of how things happen after the moment of conception, it's not his fault, it's nature. Why is he to be punished?

[Sauropolis]

Terminating a pregnancy isn't about absolving oneself of legal responsibility. Terminating a pregnancy is about control over one's own body. When a man can bear children, they can exercise the same control over their body that women do.

The physical right to have an abortion is about control. The decision to have one can stem from any number of things, including a mother deciding she isn't financially capable or of the maturity level to have a child. In that case the mother is absolving herself of the responsibility of raising a child.
You're confusing the two issues. The point isn't should a mother have the right to have an abortion, but that if a mother can choose not absolve herself of responsibility, should a father be able to.

[Sorratsin]

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.

So you're saying that the man should be allowed to leave all of that to the mother, no assistance whatsoever?
I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Where in the world did you get that?

I'm saying that fathers sacrifice something during the child raising process as well, and that this sacrifice isn't irrelevant just because the mother's is greater.

[Rokartian States]

But they don't have the right to stop afterwards.

Nor do women.

They call that homicide.

Hurr, I read 'procreation' as 'conception'. My mistake.

[Dempublicents1]

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.

A woman cannot forfeit her interests in and obligations to a child, if one is born. Now, if you think either parent should be able to forfeit said interests and obligations regardless of whether or not a child is born, so be it. But you aren't really going to counter a biological inequity by introducing a legal one.

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?

The man has the exact same rights and responsibilities in regards to reproduction and child-rearing as the woman.

This whole idea relies on equating not having a child at all to abandoning a child. The two are not equivalent.

Are men held to a higher standard to support a child regardless of their capabilities or situation?

Not at all. Generally quite the opposite, in fact. Men can and often do abandon their children without consequences. That is more rare for women.

Should men possess the same rights here that women do?

Men already possess the same rights that women do.

Women also don't have to take part in sex. I agree why should women be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, but not men?

Pregnancy takes place in the woman's body. As such, she is the only one that can terminate it.

Is it a males fault that he cannot get pregnant?

Nope.

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?

Her body is still participating in reproduction. Thus, she can still choose not to continue participating. The male equivalent would be stopping before ejaculating in such a way as to possibly cause pregnancy.

After all isn't feminism about achieving equality, not special treatment?

You're asking for special treatment. You are asking that men, and only men, be able to unilaterally terminate their rights and obligations of parenthood.

There really are only a few options here that could be seen as maintaining equality.

1) The status quo. Both men and women can decide the extent to which they will participate in the reproductive process and both men and women have equal rights and responsibilities concerning any children born from that process.

2) We determine that, because a woman makes the last decision in whether or not a child is born, only women have any automatic parental rights and responsibilities. This would mean that a man who didn't want a child would have no obligations, but it would also mean that a man who did want a child would only have access to that child if the woman chose to allow it.

3) We allow either parent to unilaterally forfeit their parental rights and obligations without the consent of the other.

4) We decide that biological parenthood will no longer automatically lead to legal parenthood. Thus, neither parent would have any parental rights or obligations regarding their children without explicitly taking them on.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Terminating a pregnancy isn't about absolving oneself of legal responsibility. Terminating a pregnancy is about control over one's own body. When a man can bear children, they can exercise the same control over their body that women do.

Woah, a post by LG that has no humor in it!?

I like to keep people guessing.

[Big Jim P]

{snip}

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

How so?

{snip}

One male orgasm vs the 9 months to carry the child. You figure it out.

[Sorratsin]

No, they can't, but they can also completely choose to have nothing to do with the child.

That would be punishing the child, the only innocent party to the whole situation.

A child will be punished if it's given a father who was forced to raise it, anyway as there won't be any love, affection, or approval. I know this from personal experience.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Terminating a pregnancy isn't about absolving oneself of legal responsibility. Terminating a pregnancy is about control over one's own body. When a man can bear children, they can exercise the same control over their body that women do.

The physical right to have an abortion is about control. The decision to have one can stem from any number of things, including a mother deciding she isn't financially capable or of the maturity level to have a child. In that case the mother is absolving herself of the responsibility of raising a child.
You're confusing the two issues. The point isn't should a mother have the right to have an abortion, but that if a mother can choose not absolve herself of responsibility, should a father be able to.

Can a woman absolve herself of responsibility for a child carried to term?

[Beldonia]

I don't believe that anyone should, but if the mother does, then the father should too.

[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.

But they don't have the right to stop afterwards.

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

How so?

I firmly believe that it is the mother's right to do whatever she wishes with her little human parasite. But the burden of conception is always on the father, and they have an obligation to support their little DNA bundle.

So, a double standard?

Single mothers have it hard enough without giving the fathers the option to leave them on their own completely.

Single fathers exist.

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

Do you oppose abortions, then?

Having an abortion is fixing your mistake. Single fathers should also be supported by the mothers, I agree.

I've been thinking, and came to the conclusion that the father should be allowed to cut ties with his unborn child if it is early enough in the pregnancy for the mother to have an abortion and she is able to, but refuses. This would be the out point for both parties, and would be completely fair.

[Big Jim P]

That would be punishing the child, the only innocent party to the whole situation.

A child will be punished if it's given a father who was forced to raise it, anyway, as there won't be any love, affection, or approval. I know this from personal experience.

Yah. Sad.

[Sorratsin]

The physical right to have an abortion is about control. The decision to have one can stem from any number of things, including a mother deciding she isn't financially capable or of the maturity level to have a child. In that case the mother is absolving herself of the responsibility of raising a child.
You're confusing the two issues. The point isn't should a mother have the right to have an abortion, but that if a mother can choose not absolve herself of responsibility, should a father be able to.

Can a woman absolve herself of responsibility for a child carried to term?

Yes.

Adoption.

[Scotovy]

Flip the genders around and the same has been said about "sluts" being able to have sex and then abort the child. No consequences.


If both parties have to agree, it still restricts the right of the putative father to the decisions of the mother. Hardly equality.

But women invest MORE than the man does when it comes to incubation of the child, and giving birth to it. ANYONE can be a sperm donor. Have you ever heard the term "fuck and chuck"?

The "Male abortion" problem is that it's too wide open to being abused by deadbeats and assholes. There has to be a REAL reason as to why the father is signing away his right, not "LOL! I AIN'T TAKIN' CARE OF THAT BITCH'S CHILD!"

Fuck and chuck