Should men have a choice in abortion?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Um. Telling them doesn't reverse the procedure. If she gets pregnant she's still sleeping around. Telling them is a GOOD thing. I mean if I got into a relationship with someone and they never told me they had a vasectomy I would probably murder them. I want kids and I don't want to waste my time with someone who doesn't want that, too. And lying on top of that, ugh.

Chicks that wanna get pregnant are THE BEST... they hound dog you all the time and they really get into it. Nothing motivates a chick to hump like a wildebeast like visions of little baby booties!

Don't come near me.

[Condunum]

Chicks that wanna get pregnant are THE BEST... they hound dog you all the time and they really get into it. Nothing motivates a chick to hump like a wildebeast like visions of little baby booties!

Don't come near me.

I second this.

[The Grey Wolf]

Don't come near me.

I second this.

I'd third this, but I'm male. So don't come near my female relatives.

[AiliailiA]

Um. Telling them doesn't reverse the procedure. If she gets pregnant she's still sleeping around. Telling them is a GOOD thing. I mean if I got into a relationship with someone and they never told me they had a vasectomy I would probably murder them. I want kids and I don't want to waste my time with someone who doesn't want that, too. And lying on top of that, ugh.

Chicks that wanna get pregnant are THE BEST... they hound dog you all the time and they really get into it. Nothing motivates a chick to hump like a wildebeast like visions of little baby booties!

I find this mildly amusing, but the rest of your audience doesn't seem to be laughing.

Does a fair shot at life not include letting women control their own bodies?

Women should 100% control their own bodies... even when they are married and their husband really wants a family all women should be able to decide to TERMINATE their pregnancy at will if they feel like it.

Agreed.

Men should be able to decide to divorce their wife if she kills the pregnancy, take all of the assets he brought into the marriage with him, and go find another wife who actually DOES want a family.

Not agreed at all. This is some other contract, not marriage.

And let me tell you, there's TONS of really HOT women out there that would LOVE to have a loving husband and a family. All we as men have to do is to get a pre-nup done that allows us to do this, at any time, at our discretion, BEFORE we marry and impregnate a woman who feels the need to go get an abortion.

You're assuming that the husband is "loving" for no other reason than he wants to have kids. Then you assume that any property brought to marriage belongs to the man ('cos chicks only get jobs temporarily, to get out of the house and meet men to support them, also they're too dumb to invest or spend on any kind of assets, it all goes on makeup and shoes right?)

Yes, you really are coming across that way. I'm hardly exaggerating your opinion at all!

Get the pre-nup and its a done deal, Sweeet! . Women keep their body sovereignty and men keep their options open.

No. The pre-nup is a contract which can be challenged in court. And the challenge is very likely to go that up until the point she had the abortion she was in complaince with the contract, and deserves a share of common property accumulated up until then.

Also, I think you're vastly overestimating the number of "hot women" who would be fine with a contract where they stand to lose all their property in some circumstance, but there are no obligations on the husband whatsoever. Or penalties.

If I were a woman, having heard your opinions, I would not trust you at all to deal fairly with me if for some legitimate medical reason I wanted an abortion. You come across as someone who is literally trying to buy a woman. I might marry you anyway (if you're really loaded, not a total dud in the sack, and at least pleasant towards me) but your pre-nup you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.

[AiliailiA]

I second this.

I'd third this, but I'm male. So don't come near my female relatives.

After "seconding" of a motion, the usual course of a meeting is to call a vote on the proposal.

I abstain! On the basis that no female relative of mine is likely to be even remotely interested in him. And he might give her some excuse to kick him in the balls.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I'd third this, but I'm male. So don't come near my female relatives.

After "seconding" of a motion, the usual course of a meeting is to call a vote on the proposal.

I abstain! On the basis that no female relative of mine is likely to be even remotely interested in him. And he might give her some excuse to kick him in the balls.

He's given me plenty of reason.

[AiliailiA]

After "seconding" of a motion, the usual course of a meeting is to call a vote on the proposal.

I abstain! On the basis that no female relative of mine is likely to be even remotely interested in him. And he might give her some excuse to kick him in the balls.

He's given me plenty of reason.

Ooh, Internet Tough Girl.

Yeah, I'm not taking that seriously. Site guidelines you know ...

[The Rich Port]

... I can't even deal with you right now.

So rape is justified.

Goodbye, faith in humanity. I knew ye well.

Can I haz rape?

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard.

hint: that was obviously not what I said.

You guys' sarcasm detectors are in serious need of some maintenance.

Whether it was a joke or not is irrelevant. My assertion is still credible.

It's the dumbest thing I ever heard, it just happened to be a dumb joke.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

hint: that was obviously not what I said.

You guys' sarcasm detectors are in serious need of some maintenance.

Whether it was a joke or not is irrelevant. My assertion is still credible.

It's the dumbest thing I ever heard, it just happened to be a dumb joke.

Jokes involving rape are always dumb.

[Wakapakaflakataka]

Yes, unless the woman's life is in danger, or if the man raped her. It's the man's child too, so unless they both want an abortion, there should be no abortion.

It's growing in her body.
Why shouldn't she be able to make the decision alone?

If she consented to sex, then she knew that having a child was a possible result. She wouldn't be required to raise the child once it's born, but that's no reason to deny the man of his own child (much like if the woman wants to have a child but the man doesn't, the man shouldn't be required to raise it, but he has no reason to deny the woman of her own child), provided that there is no risk of danger for the woman by giving birth.

To all the people who say men should have a say:
What if the man and woman disagree? Whose choice is it then?

The one who doesn't want the abortion. The other one can opt out of raising the child, but if one wants the child, they should be allowed to have it.

[Eoghania]

Women should 100% control their own bodies... even when they are married and their husband really wants a family all women should be able to decide to TERMINATE their pregnancy at will if they feel like it.

Agreed.

Men should be able to decide to divorce their wife if she kills the pregnancy, take all of the assets he brought into the marriage with him, and go find another wife who actually DOES want a family.

Not agreed at all. This is some other contract, not marriage.

And let me tell you, there's TONS of really HOT women out there that would LOVE to have a loving husband and a family. All we as men have to do is to get a pre-nup done that allows us to do this, at any time, at our discretion, BEFORE we marry and impregnate a woman who feels the need to go get an abortion.

You're assuming that the husband is "loving" for no other reason than he wants to have kids. Then you assume that any property brought to marriage belongs to the man ('cos chicks only get jobs temporarily, to get out of the house and meet men to support them, also they're too dumb to invest or spend on any kind of assets, it all goes on makeup and shoes right?)

Yes, you really are coming across that way. I'm hardly exaggerating your opinion at all!

Get the pre-nup and its a done deal, Sweeet! . Women keep their body sovereignty and men keep their options open.

No. The pre-nup is a contract which can be challenged in court. And the challenge is very likely to go that up until the point she had the abortion she was in complaince with the contract, and deserves a share of common property accumulated up until then.

You've misread RSK. Read again:

take all of the assets he brought into the marriage with him

He brought with him =/= the common property. Arguably, he's saying the woman should get that. Split the common goods (not necessarily 50-50 if one could reasonably be considered to have produced more), take the starting goods. Though personally, I'm more in favour of just paper abortion. Women have (usually) until the start of the third trimester to abort. Give their partners until then to choose to give up all rights and responsibilities. The child won't be legally theirs, and accordingly they're obliged to give nothing to support said child.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

hint: that was obviously not what I said.

You guys' sarcasm detectors are in serious need of some maintenance.

Whether it was a joke or not is irrelevant. My assertion is still credible.

It's the dumbest thing I ever heard, it just happened to be a dumb joke.

There was no joke. And if anything, it wasn't about rape. So, yeah...

[Cameroi]

if a man gets pregnant, he should certainly have access to an abortion. i'm sorry, but there is absolutely no other logical sense the question makes.

[Czechanada]

if a man gets pregnant, he should certainly have access to an abortion. i'm sorry, but there is absolutely no other logical sense the question makes.

No, no, you have a point. The law should mandate that any human should have the right to get an abortion (if it doesn't already do so) for the purposes of gender equality.

[Stahn]

Let us just agree that the father and mother each has 50 percent of the vote but that the mother can settle all ties.

Problem solved.

[Ifreann]

Let us just agree that the father and mother each has 50 percent of the vote but that the mother can settle all ties.

Problem solved.

So, the mother has all the say, but fathers need to pretend they have a say because their precious feelings?

[Tsuntion]

Let us just agree that the father and mother each has 50 percent of the vote but that the mother can settle all ties.

Problem solved.

Sure.

That equates to the father having no say whatsoever.

	Mother wants abortion	Mother doesn't want abortion
Father wants abortion	They agree; mother aborts	They disagree; mother breaks tie; mother doesn't abort
Father doesn't want abortion	They disagree; mother breaks tie; mother aborts	They agree; mother doesn't abort

It's very clear from this table that if the mother wants to abort, then she will, and if she doesn't, then she won't. The father does not influence that.

I mean, I don't have much of a problem with this happening, but I thought you'd like to know what you're saying. Of course, I think it's reasonable that she consults with him in some cases, but she gets the final say.

[Czechanada]

Let us just agree that the father and mother each has 50 percent of the vote but that the mother can settle all ties.

Problem solved.

Sure.

That equates to the father having no say whatsoever.

	Mother wants abortion	Mother doesn't want abortion
Father wants abortion	They agree; mother aborts	They disagree; mother breaks tie; mother doesn't abort
Father doesn't want abortion	They disagree; mother breaks tie; mother aborts	They agree; mother doesn't abort

It's very clear from this table that if the mother wants to abort, then she will, and if she doesn't, then she won't. The father does not influence that.

I mean, I don't have much of a problem with this happening, but I thought you'd like to know what you're saying. Of course, I think it's reasonable that she consults with him in some cases, but she gets the final say.

Even better would be to have hovering automated abortion drones ready to perform an abortion whenever the mother desires.

[Stahn]

Let us just agree that the father and mother each has 50 percent of the vote but that the mother can settle all ties.

Problem solved.

So, the mother has all the say, but fathers need to pretend they have a say because their precious feelings?

I was trying to make a point. "Should men have a choice in abortion?" let us say they should. Then who else should have a say? Personally I can think only of the pregnant woman. And if she should disagree with the father who then will be able to settle the draw? The men? I think that is absurd because putting a child upon the Earth requires way more of women then it does of men.
Men can not have a choice. It is not really fair but it is practical. It can only be the woman who makes the decision and no one else.

It seems that the assumption of the TS is that the choice of the man would be to be against the abortion. But if men should have a choice they should be able to choose to have an abortion even if the woman doesn't want it. I wonder if people who think that men should have a choice have considered that.

Men have no choice in this matter. It simply doesn't work that way.

[Tahar Joblis]

The fact that death is a natural occurrence and should not reasonably construed to violate rights is my point: It's absurd to claim such a right exists, because someone else dying of natural causes violates that "right."

That's fucking retarded.

You have a right to live without having someone else taking your life FROM you.

"You" aren't "someone else." Check that standard again. You being murdered fails on two counts to match the above argument - it happens to you, and a human is involved.

If your "right" is violated by something not caused by any other human happening to someone who isn't you, then the "right" is of pretty dubious status.

[The Grey Wolf]

That's fucking retarded.

You have a right to live without having someone else taking your life FROM you.

"You" aren't "someone else." Check that standard again. You being murdered fails on two counts to match the above argument - it happens to you, and a human is involved.

If your "right" is violated by something not caused by any other human happening to someone who isn't you, then the "right" is of pretty dubious status.

My brain hurts.

[Tahar Joblis]

Let us just agree that the father and mother each has 50 percent of the vote but that the mother can settle all ties.

Problem solved.

Sure.

That equates to the father having no say whatsoever.

	Mother wants abortion	Mother doesn't want abortion
Father wants abortion	They agree; mother aborts	They disagree; mother breaks tie; mother doesn't abort
Father doesn't want abortion	They disagree; mother breaks tie; mother aborts	They agree; mother doesn't abort

It's very clear from this table that if the mother wants to abort, then she will, and if she doesn't, then she won't. The father does not influence that.

I mean, I don't have much of a problem with this happening, but I thought you'd like to know what you're saying. Of course, I think it's reasonable that she consults with him in some cases, but she gets the final say.

Well, that's "equality" the way the assignment of parental obligations are "equality." After birth, the mother's legal options push us into this table:

	Mother wants kid	Mother doesn't want kid
Father wants kid	Both parents gain parental obligations. Mother automatically gains parental rights. Father may or may not gain parental rights.	Neither parent gains parental obligations. Neither parent gains parental rights.
Father doesn't want kid	Both parents gain parental obligations. Mother automatically gains parental rights. Father may or may not gain parental rights.	Neither parent gains parental obligations. Neither parent gains parental rights.

As you see, the father's desires are totally irrelevant to what the mother can force to happen. If the mother wants the kid, both parents automatically assume parental obligations, the mother automatically assumes parental rights; and the father gaining parental rights in addition to his obligations requires either the cooperation of the mother or successful court action by the father.

Yet some people seem to think that's "equal" legal rights.

Xut if men should have a choice they should be able to choose to have an abortion even if the woman doesn't want it. I wonder if people who think that men should have a choice have considered that.

I rather suspect that most of the people saying men should have a choice want to break ties either for or against an abortion.

Given the number of men unhappy about the injustice I outline above, I would not be surprised if there are men who feel that women should be required to abort if it would subject a man to obligation to proceed. They are probably outnumbered by the men who feel that women should be required to carry to term if the father does not agree with abortion, and I rather think that most of them would be satisfied with something less than an actual abortion, hence the discussion of parental relinquishment being made available to men instead of just women, as it is at present; but neither is a particularly large crowd.

There certainly are some people who feel that reproduction should be controlled strictly.

[Tahar Joblis]

"You" aren't "someone else." Check that standard again. You being murdered fails on two counts to match the above argument - it happens to you, and a human is involved.

If your "right" is violated by something not caused by any other human happening to someone who isn't you, then the "right" is of pretty dubious status.

My brain hurts.

Your brain hurting does not violate Stahn's rights.

To reiterate the point.

[AiliailiA]

"You" aren't "someone else." Check that standard again. You being murdered fails on two counts to match the above argument - it happens to you, and a human is involved.

If your "right" is violated by something not caused by any other human happening to someone who isn't you, then the "right" is of pretty dubious status.

My brain hurts.

TJ is pretty eloquent when he gets warmed up.

That post though ... a bit like getting the engine of a WW2-vintage tank to finally turn over, but then it stalls again and fried cockroaches come out the exhaust.

[Stahn]

This is not a discussion about if abortion is immoral or not. This is a discussion about whether men should have a say in it.

If you want to have a discussion about the morality of abortions I am sure there are topics out there just for that.

But in order to discuss the dilemma the TS of this topic has started we have to assume a neutral position on abortion itself.

Men are involved with pregnancy. But women to a greater extend. Besides the potential parents everyone else is mostly irrelevant.

Only two people really have a say when it comes to abortion. And I think it should be obvious that the women have a greater say then the men.

It is not ideal but this does make the man's opinion irrelevant.

That is the point I was trying to make.

If you think abortions are immoral this dilemma is moot for you.