Why suspend the man's rights in the issue of abortion?

[Che Guava]

... I know... ?

Sorry, dude, that section wasn't aimed at you

 

[Godwynn]

Sorry, dude, that section wasn't aimed at you

Ah, I understand now!

 

[Mise]

Another case of someone not reading. Does the English speaking world have a chronic illiteracy problem? In case of the man not being present, or not caring what happens, as obviously would be the case here, an abortion should be perfectly legal.

Apparently you missed the point. It doesn't matter whether or not the man is going to be responsible after the birth. The man has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever DURING the birth - the responsibility rests entirely upon the woman, and therefore the woman's opinion is the only one that carries any weight during that period.

When the child is born, however, equal responsibility between the two parents means equal weight of opinion between them.

 

[GeorgeOP]

If the man owns no rights to a fetus or child, then we should end nonvoluntary child support. If the woman didn't want the financial responsibility of the kid, she shouldn't screw around.

It is another example of our society's sexism against men that a female can kill a baby and is treated as a victim, while the man is told to keep his pants up and has his paycheck taken for 20 years.

 

[Little Raven]

If the man owns no rights to a fetus or child, then we should end nonvoluntary child support. If the woman didn't want the financial responsibility of the kid, she shouldn't screw around.

*sigh*

Again, child support is not a punishment for the father. It's to support the child. Someone has to do it. And for some bizarre reason, most people think that should be the parents rather than the taxpayers.

And yes, keeping your pants up is generally good policy, whether you're a man OR a woman.

 

[Che Guava]

If the man owns no rights to a fetus or child, then we should end nonvoluntary child support. If the woman didn't want the financial responsibility of the kid, she shouldn't screw around.

It is another example of our society's sexism against men that a female can kill a baby and is treated as a victim, while the man is told to keep his pants up and has his paycheck taken for 20 years

.


Absolutely! Damn women, always screwing around with men who are just minding thier own business, completely unaware of what's going on.

And then that b***** gets money from the guy for 20 years for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Damn welfare mothers, trapping poor boys and stealing thier sperm...if only our society would take some pity on the poor male victims...

 

[GenMarshall]

The consideration of the man should be taken. I mean the child contains half of his genetics. Though this is a non issue for my since I am only for abortions if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, incest, or rape. I am opposed to abortions as a form of birth control, just because "the mother does not want the child".

 

[Brighteye]

It would be cool if a guy wanted an abortion, but the woman doesn't, so he doesn't have to take care of it.

It would be right. If a man wants an abortion, but the woman wants a child, I don't see why she should be able to force him to support the child. If a woman wants an abortion the man can't force her to support his child because she can have the abortion.
Men shouldn't have abortion rights, but they should have more rights about being forced to pay for children.

 

[Little Raven]

It would be right. If a man wants an abortion, but the woman wants a child, I don't see why she should be able to force him to support the child.

Because someone has to. It's rare that a single woman is able to generate the necessary resources to support a child on her own. (and those that can generally do without asking for help) If we don't hit up the father, the cost eventually trickles down to the taxpayers, and few voters think that's a good idea.

 

[Mr. Do]

I'd agree to the suggestion, with the caveat that any man who does so must undergo a vasectomy to ensure he doesn't impregnate and enslave any other women.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'd agree to the suggestion, with the caveat that any man who does so must undergo a vasectomy to ensure he doesn't impregnate and enslave any other women.

That doesn't follow. Somebody gets knocked up, daddy wants to see it through, so daddy never gets to have any other kids?

 

[Mr. Do]

Well it's not the most logical course of action, but a vasectomy can be reversed. If the man is going to put the woman through nine months of discomfort, he should have to go through the same physicalness.

 

[LucyDuke]

Well it's not the most logical course of action, but a vasectomy can be reversed. If the man is going to put the woman through nine months of discomfort, he should have to go through the same physicalness.

Yeah, you're spot on with "not the most logical". Comparing a vasectomy and a pregnancy... well, I've never experienced either, but I'm pretty sure it's not reasonable to call them "the same physicalness".

 

[Mr. Do]

Well either way, forcing a woman to go through pregnancy makes about as much sense as forcing a man into a vasectomy.

 

[mdwh]

At the end of the day, it's the woman's body, not the man's. He can go and find someone else to have his baby.

The big problem however is that when the situation is reversed, the woman can have his baby, and then the man is forced to pay for it (at least in the UK, even if the mother doesn't want his payments, I think the CSA go after the fathers anyway?)

So if you're willing to change the law to free someone of financial liability, it strikes me it's a lot simpler (and less controversial) to simply allow the man to opt out of financial responsibility.

The poll doesn't tell us a great deal - many of those saying "Yes" are no doubt against abortion anyway, but I'm curious how many people are okay with abortion, except for when the man doesn't consent? And how many people would prefer my suggestion instead?

 

[mdwh]

Well either way, forcing a woman to go through pregnancy makes about as much sense as forcing a man into a vasectomy.

Except that a pregnancy has a purpose here - not that I agree with forcing someone through it, but I don't follow your logic.

 

[GeorgeOP]

it strikes me it's a lot simpler (and less controversial) to simply allow the man to opt out of financial responsibility.

This is what I think would be fair. I was being a little over the top to show a point.

 

[GinandTonic]

No, it's not fair that men aren't able to be assured of their seed sprouting. But it's also not fair that women aren't able to have children unless they carry them themselves. It's not fair to compel a woman to carry a child she does not want. It's not fair the way it is now, and it wouldn't be fair the way you suggest, so I'll go with the least restrictive option.

I expect to get pounced on for this, but... a man doesn't have rights in the issue of abortion.

The truth.

Life isnt fair, and its the ladies body. It may freak a man out to have no ability to control what the lady is doing, but its her body so its her gig.

 

[Cuivienen]

No, it's not fair that men aren't able to be assured of their seed sprouting. But it's also not fair that women aren't able to have children unless they carry them themselves. It's not fair to compel a woman to carry a child she does not want. It's not fair the way it is now, and it wouldn't be fair the way you suggest, so I'll go with the least restrictive option.

I expect to get pounced on for this, but... a man doesn't have rights in the issue of abortion.

What she said.

(By the way, I voted incorrectly in the poll; it wasn't clear to me what the question was.)

 

[Stylesjl]

The man has NO rights to control someone else's body