Male stance on Abortion

[Little brother]

I had a interesting chat with a friend of mine some time ago. It involved another friend of mine, a boy who is 16 now and has recently found out that his girlfriend who is 17 has fallen pregnant, the baby is his.
So the discussion was about abortion, the boy was really quite a smart kid and was in all the high classes at school and so forth. However with the baby due in a few months time he's had to drop out of school and look for a job. Now the whole situation has split both families up and because of the baby the two are moving away to the city.
Now, we recently learnt that the boy didn't want the baby while the girl did. The basis of the discussion was that the boy had no say in the matter of abortion, he wanted to abort while she wanted to keep it. Now, i came into this discussion on the side of the girl, it was her body so i felt it was her call, however my friend brought up some points that had, by the end of the discussion changed my mind.
"My problem with this situation is that Andrew (boy's name) has no say in this matter, sure he can say i don't want the baby, but legally he can nothing, now this boy is going to have this connection with the girl forever, as long as the kid is alive he's always going to be a part of her life and vice versa. Not only that, he's going to have to support this kid the whole time as well, even if it isn't to his wishes, he'll have to pay to put him through school, through Uni, through life and he wouldn't even want the child. Is this not in some form discrimatory to men? It sounds terrible to say that the life of a child is a burden but to this boy it is. Which brings up the next part, this is a boy, a 16 year old boy who has to live with this responsibility, for the child will be his responsibility until the day he or it dies, is it not fair that men get a better say when it comes to abortion?"

Though when he said it it sounded much better i assure you, but the arguement had me won over, what do you guys think?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I don't like abortion, but I don't like the result of banning abortion, either.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

A solution needs to occur where women recieve funding from the government and the men are not held liable in all cases. The current situation is far from fair. It might even be justified that men are never held liable. I mean, it's not a man's responsibility to monitor the activity and development of a women's body. If I got had unprotected sex with a women, and I got an STD - I wouldn't hold her liable. I realized that that could happen and took the risk upon engaging in the activity. Men realize that there is no risk involved in them getting a women pregnant so they don't take it into account - or that should be the case - while women are expected to monitor themselves.

To each his or her own when it comes to bodily mechanics, I say!

[TC]

This issue has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with a capitalist system that, unlike in socialist societies, treats infants and children as somehow the responsibility of their parents rather than the responsibility of society as a whole.


Whether or not someone gets an abortion should not be any concern to anyone else, it is however a financial concern to the biological father in capitalist systems that hold them accountable for their sex partners decision.


Personally i think that if someone accidentally gets pregnant with someone who doesn't want a child, they shouldn't make him pay for it, they should make their decision about what to do with it in such a way that doesn't involve him (either getting an abortion, giving it up for adoption, of raising it on their own, depending on their preference). Likewise though i don't think men should have any legal rights over anyones fetus or fathers any legal rights over their children; simply being biologically related to someone shouldn't give them 'visitation rights' or the right to be a legal guardian.

[Forward Union]

I agree with TC.

No one is saying women don't have the right to abort in this scenario, of course they do. Every human has the right to decide what's best for them.

Women have the choice to abort in this society (to an extent) on the basis that it will effect their life, physically financially etc (and other reasons but im only mentioning these). However, in capitalism, men are also physically and financially tied to the child, and yet have no legal say in the matter. They simply have to submit to the authority of the woman. If the woman wants the child, the mans fucked for life, if not, he's let off. Considering of course that a lot of decisions to not abort are based on Superstition, this whole situation can be pretty ridiculous.

Im not saying men should have the right to get people pregnant, then bugger off - or that the male should have any right to decide what the woman should do with her own body, but within this capitalist framework, he should not be tied in to bringing up the child, assuming the pregnancy was an accident.

Everyone should have the right to make decisions for him/herself, decisions that will change their whole life. But no one should have the right to make life-altering decisions for others.

Which is what not-aborting essentially does in many cases, this is a problem with the capitalist society.

[KC]

I agree with TC.

Never thought I'd hear that one. :mellow:

Back on topic: I love abortions. I support all women in their choice to get them. I bet you didn't know that I hate kids. :P

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 16 2006, 02:09 PM
but within this capitalist framework, he should not be tied in to bringing up the child, assuming the pregnancy was an accident.
Well within this society-- this framework such a scenerio just wouldn't work. The child will end up in shitty economic conditions. With families these days and especially working-class couples both parents work-- which has been going on since the 19th century. They need the double income otherwize they may be living in poverty.

Also, another problem with your argument and in relation to today, what stops a man from turning around and saying " I don't want the kid or the responsibility" when before he said, " Yes, raising a child will be wonderful" ? Now hes exempt from any of the responsibilities he vowed he'd take.

I would like to see a society, or be a part in making such a society where having an unexpected child doesn't fuck-up a persons life. In our present capitalist society there is way too much stressing on the individual.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ideally, the baby would be taken from this couple. Just because of a couple of kids can have a baby, doesn't mean they should have the right to raise one. This is a tremedous injustice to both the parents, who are being forced to leave school and work to raise this baby, and the baby, who will be raised by two kids.

[chicaoftherevolution707]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:28 PM
Whether or not someone gets an abortion should not be any concern to anyone else, it is however a financial concern to the biological father in capitalist systems that hold them accountable for their sex partners decision.



enough said

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:28 PM
Personally i think that if someone accidentally gets pregnant with someone who doesn't want a child, they shouldn't make him pay for it, they should make their decision about what to do with it in such a way that doesn't involve him (either getting an abortion, giving it up for adoption, of raising it on their own, depending on their preference). Likewise though i don't think men should have any legal rights over anyones fetus or fathers any legal rights over their children; simply being biologically related to someone shouldn't give them 'visitation rights' or the right to be a legal guardian.
while i agree with your criticisms of capitalism, and the unfair financial burdens parents are faced with that force people to turn to abortion as an option, i disagree with this. while this burden is terribly unjust, men are still aware of its existence. if they are concerned about the financial consequences of raising a child, they should abstain from spilling their seed or talk with the woman about their stances on abortion prior to intercourse.

i don't see how it is just to force the economic burden entirely on the mother.

[TC]

Originally posted by Chimx+--> (Chimx)while i agree with your criticisms of capitalism, and the unfair financial burdens parents are faced with that force people to turn to abortion as an option, i disagree with this. [/b]

thats not true at all, a mother can always put it up for adoption if they don't want to abort it.


Chimx
while this burden is terribly unjust, men are still aware of its existence. if they are concerned about the financial consequences of raising a child, they should abstain from spilling their seed or talk with the woman about their stances on abortion prior to intercourse.

Thats like the excuse that anti-choice people use to tell women that they have to go through with any pregnancy since they were aware of the risk when they decided to have sex. You can't really say that, if someones condom breaks they were aware of that possibility so they have to face the consequences.


i don't see how it is just to force the economic burden entirely on the mother.


Its not, by choosing to have a child and by choosing to keep it rather than give it up for adoption, they choose to accept that financial burden in the capitalist system. Men don't have either of those choices.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It has always been a personal opinion of mine that as the human race stands, men should have no say in the issue of abortion.

[apathy maybe]

Abortion is an interesting topic, sure to rile people up. I used to be against it, but I now generally don't care. It comes from reading Singer, I am also a vegetarian.

I agree with Tragic Clown to a limited extent on this issue.

The man should have some rights though, just not any actual say in whether the abortion goes ahead. He has some say, but the women can always veto him.

Part of the trouble is this society, if the child did not require looking after, did not require money to live, then it would not matter. But because the capitalist system does not look after mothers or their children, we have the situation such that men have to help support them. Which is why it seems some people think that men should have a veto. Which I think is wrong.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Tragicclown+--> (Tragicclown)thats not true at all, a mother can always put it up for adoption if they don't want to abort it.[/b]

If that is your reasoning, that women can always just give it up for adoption if they don't want to have an abortion, instead of having the male financially tied to the raising of the baby, than you are out of touch with a lot of women firstly, and secondly, completely naive as to the realities of adoption agencies.


Tragicclown
Thats like the excuse that anti-choice people use to tell women that they have to go through with any pregnancy since they were aware of the risk when they decided to have sex. You can't really say that, if someones condom breaks they were aware of that possibility so they have to face the consequences.

don't try to disregard my point by erroneously correlating my position with that of anti-choice people. many women don't want to have children, and will take preventative measures (ie. birth control, condoms) to ensure it doesn't happen, but will not use abortion as an option for whatever reason they see fit. what do you tell them? either give it to an adoption agency (naive) or deal with the financial burden yourself?

Your stance is centered around the concept of punishing women who don't have the same view of abortion as you do.


Its not, by choosing to have a child and by choosing to keep it rather than give it up for adoption, they choose to accept that financial burden in the capitalist system. Men don't have either of those choices.

and this will result in the perpetuation of economic stratification between men and women with your own moral stance. it is anti-woman bullshit.

men should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion, the man should be smart enough to find this out before he gets involved and act accordingly.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by El Kablamo
I would like to see a society, or be a part in making such a society where having an unexpected child doesn't fuck-up a persons life. In our present capitalist society there is way too much stressing on the individual

Doesn't everyone....


But this type of scenario goes to show how the current system we have is designed to inflict the most possible damage on a person's life who, to a certain degree, had something unfortunate or unexpected befall him or her (be it pregnancy, accidents, psych trouble, and the like)
The mother's decision and power is atop anything else that might be involved in the pregnancy and if allowed, the baby's life
The father on the other hand can influence or coerce the mother into doing what he wishes, but ultimately the mother (like everyone said) has the veto power

If the woman chooses to have an abortion, she has the option of asking her bf to pay for the abortion, and if he refuses or cannot (which is unlikely), she should not keep the baby in order to punish him, but rather she should pay to have the abortion
Keeping an unwanted pregnancy (if adoption is ruled out) to use as economic leverage against the father is exploitation, and just plain wrong

Now, in this society if the father does not take on the baby (if that is the decision) as a responsibility, chances are that the baby will have to suffer through economic hardships along with the mother (if she is not economically sound), and in many instances the mother and child's situation will occur again

Therefore, considering this dilemma which unfortunately is rampant in society today, I believe that if the father does not object to the pregnancy or if it accidentally happens, society bestows upon him the responsibility to support his child
I mean, of course its not right, but considering the reality that we face, we cannot let a person related to us suffer anything that we would'nt want for ourselves, which is what would happen if the father neglected his baby, and so therefore he should do as much as possible to ease and help in his baby's life
Even if that means having an economic connection to him his entire life

[TC]

Originally posted by Chimx+--> (Chimx)If that is your reasoning, that women can always just give it up for adoption if they don't want to have an abortion, instead of having the male financially tied to the raising of the baby, than you are out of touch with a lot of women firstly, and secondly, completely naive as to the realities of adoption agencies.
[/b]

Out of touch with a lot of women? I'm sorry that i'm unsympathetic to the view that women are baby factories and if you get pregnant its only natural to have it and raise the kid no matter how little sense that might make in ones personal circumstances. If someone can't afford a child, they shouldn't try to raise one and its not some kindof an entitlement; if they can only support a child with a partner, then they should wait until they have a willing partner rather than trying to force someone against their will to participate.

The reality of adoption agencies is that they have far more people wanting a child, especially an infant, than there are infants up for adoption, so from their end its not an issue. They can even interview perspective parents for their biological offspring in a lot of agencies.


Originally posted by Chimx+--> (Chimx)don't try to disregard my point by erroneously correlating my position with that of anti-choice people. many women don't want to have children, and will take preventative measures (ie. birth control, condoms) to ensure it doesn't happen, but will not use abortion as an option for whatever reason they see fit. what do you tell them? either give it to an adoption agency (naive) or deal with the financial burden yourself?[/b]

Right, thats exactly what i'd tell them. Or, more realistically, i'd tell them to just get an abortion if they don't want to deal with the financial burden of it, since thats a lot easier than being pregnant and giving birth and wait until they have a willing partner or are financially indepedent before having a child.

I wouldn't tell them that they had some kindof natural right not only to parent another, indepedent individual, a child who, once born constitutes a seperate person with their own rights, but they also had the right to demand that some other indepedent individual finance this personal project against their will.


Originally posted by Chimx
Your stance is centered around the concept of punishing women who don't have the same view of abortion as you do.

Actually, women who don't have the same view of abortion as i do are punishing themselves, physically, emotionally and financially; thats hardly something i'd support.

Your stance, however, is centered around punishing their sex partners.



[email protected]
and this will result in the perpetuation of economic stratification between men and women with your own moral stance. it is anti-woman bullshit.


Chimx you are such an anti-feminist male-chauvenist sometimes.

Economic stratification between men and women is due to women taking care of children rather than working as much as their male partners who support them. Your solution is to encourage just that. By arguing for women to have children and then be financially depedent on a man for support you are advocating the financial subjegation of women which is the basis for their socio-political subjegation. I'm advocating in contrast that no one who isn't financially capable of supporting themselves and a child should have a child, otherwise they'll be socially and financially dependent on a man and therefore socially inferior to him; they should either have an abortion or have someone who is more financially secure take care of it. What you're arguing is the real "anti-woman bullshit."


You are a family-values reactionary misrepresenting himself as an anarchist!


Chimx
men should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion, the man should be smart enough to find this out before he gets involved and act accordingly.

I think its a fair assumption that in contemporary society if you want a child with someone you need to ask him if he agrees first, since there is never a presumption anymore than sex means reproduction.

Why shift the burden to the man who has no choice in the matter rather than the woman who does? Why not say that a pro-lifer shouldn't sleep with anyone unless she asks them if they'd agree to be a father in the event of forgetfulness/slippage/breakage/act-of-god and acts accordingly. Why not hold them accountable for their choices rather than holding someone else accountable for the unintended and highly improbable consequences of their actions.

[TC]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17 2006, 04:16 AM


The man should have some rights though, just not any actual say in whether the abortion goes ahead. He has some say, but the women can always veto him.

Its none of his buisness what someone else does with their body, any man's opinion is wholely irrelevant and shouldn't be considered.


What someone does with their lives and the life of a 3rd individual that only exists after a woman decides not to have an abortion, is a seperate issue. I don't think that people should be entitled to raise children just because they happened to decide to give birth to one; the decision of what to do with a pregnancy is an individuals but the decision of what to do with a child is a communities; otherwise it would be treating that child as property of its mother.

[chimx]

TC: you are making the abortion issue far to black and white. countless women maintain that they are pro-choice, but ultimately wouldn't emotionally be up for an abortion themselves. they advocate maintaining pro-choice legislation because they feel others should be allowed to have that option.

Your position completely leaves these women out of the picture. You can't see past your own morality and make arguments that benefit the most, albeit diverse, group of people. I am not anti-choice and favor abortions, but at the same time I am not too dense to realize that for many women, abortion isn't considered as trivial as a cavity removal, as you seem to assert.

And come on, dependency on men? The couple hundred bucks fathers are required by law to give up to their child's mother hardly constitutes a dependency, but rather a financial responsibility of the father to assist in the consequences of his actions. You are completely blowing this out of proportion to make your point. Hopefully people can see through the B.S. you're spewing to see that my point has very little to do with your rebuttals.

[apathy maybe]

I'll just quickly reply to two things here. But before I do, I'll reiterate my position that I think it is up to the women to do what she wants, and that the present system is flawed 'cause it forces men to support any children (among other problems).


Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)Its none of his buisness what someone else does with their body, any man's opinion is wholely irrelevant and shouldn't be considered.[/b]
I disagree. I am a man, and that does come into it.

A man always has some say, even if his opinion is ultimately ignored. If the mother and father were in a stable "long-term" relationship, then I think that the father should have the 'right' to express his opinion. (Even if the parents are not in a stable relationship I still think that the men has some say.) It could be that the father wants a child, or not. But as I said before, it does come down to what the women wants.

What you seem to be saying is that a friend or parent can't advice a person on what to do in regards to (for example) a tattoo (doing something with a person's body). Where as I do think that other people should be able to advice or offer their opinion as to what people do with their bodies. But ultimately it comes down to the person whose body it is to make the choice .


Originally posted by [email protected]
What someone does with their lives and the life of a 3rd individual that only exists after a woman decides not to have an abortion, is a seperate issue. I don't think that people should be entitled to raise children just because they happened to decide to give birth to one; the decision of what to do with a pregnancy is an individuals but the decision of what to do with a child is a communities; otherwise it would be treating that child as property of its mother.I do tend to agree with the sentiment expressed here. To a certain extent, tempered by the fact that I think the present system is completely fucked up and I don't think that the "community" (i.e. the state) has any say in a child's upbringing. In a anarchist (communist) society, it would be a different matter.


chimx
And come on, dependency on men? The couple hundred bucks fathers are required by law to give up to their child's mother hardly constitutes a dependency, but rather a financial responsibility of the father to assist in the consequences of his actions. You are completely blowing this out of proportion to make your point. Hopefully people can see through the B.S. you're spewing to see that my point has very little to do with your rebuttals. The father's actions? The mother has as much responsibility (actually more) when it comes down to whether or not a child is brought into this world. Yes men have the option of using a condom, or having a vasectomy or using one of these new pills that I think are on the market. But women can also use a diaphragm, have their tubes tied, use a birth control pill. They can also choose to have an abortion. And both have the option to refrain from vaginal sex altogether.

As I argued above, often the father did not even want to have the child, it could have come about through accident (condom breaking, fucked up surgical procedure with the vasectomy etc.), or a deliberate act by the mother to get pregnant. In which case, are you punishing the man for simply having sex? I hope not.

[chimx]

yes, i am punishing the man for simply having sex. even as remote of a possibility as conception is when precautions are used, the possibility of it is always there and men know this. if they are willing to have intercourse regardless of this risk then they should be made to bare at least some of the financial burden of raising a child in a capitalist society if the mother is either opposed to abortion or adoption for whatever reasons she may have.

like TC, i am not opposed to either abortion or adoption, but one has to realize that not all men and women view either issues the same, as they are emotionally trying issues for many people for whatever reason.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Chimx if the mother is opposed to abortion and doesn't want a kid, then why is she putting herself in that situation in the first place?

She can say no to sex full stop and be celibate.

Its far more practical for the guys to have no rights and no responsibilities.

[chimx]

because sex is fun and celibacy is lame, and there are precautions against pregnancy that make fertilization remote.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:06 AM
Chimx if the mother is opposed to abortion and doesn't want a kid, then why is she putting herself in that situation in the first place?

She can say no to sex full stop and be celibate.

Its far more practical for the guys to have no rights and no responsibilities.
well turn this around... if a guy doesnt want a child he doesnt have to have sex either right? so if he does he seems to want a child... oh wait...

i think not having sex is not an option we want.. cuz i think sex is nice and i think most ppl would agree on that


first of all i think we all agree that this whole discussion is caused by the capitalist system. in a communist society the child would be raised by the mother and/or father (and whoever else is in the relationship) and with the community. so we all agree on getting rid of capitalism.

so far the points we (i guess) agree on.
i am not aware of the situation the adoption system is in in your countries, but here in germany you can give you child away to a so called "babyklappe".

http://www.familienhandbuch.de/cms/Hilfen_Babynest2.jpg

you can put your child in there anonymously and it will be taken care of by a nurse. with this and a working adoption system i agree with TC that fathers should have no responsibilty and no right to decide over the child. (i guess i dont have to say that mature human beings should be able to decide if they can afford a child, if they want to raise it together, if their parents / friends help them out etc and base a logical decision on this)

but i strongly disagree with putting men in the victim role despite a few cases. those would be:

-the condom breakes
-the girl said the is taking the pill but really wasnt.
-the girl told him, if something happens she will abort

but as i am a guy and happen to talk to alot of them, many guys have unprotected sex and they know it. in this case, maybe its unfair but i also dont call people with my mobile phone all day and at the end of the month complain that i am in dept. we all know of this reality, we all know many things are unfair but many things we can actually decide and one of these things is if we have unprotected sex.

i actually observed me wanting to make those idiots pay about everytime i see one of those whining posts about how that bad bad girl ruined someones life. sorry to say but either it was an accident or you ruined it yourself dude. (addressing someone not existant in this conversation i hope )

[LoneRed]

Say the wife wants it the man doesnt, The man shouldnt be responsible for raising it, It's half his baby, but for some reason or another he doesnt want it, he shouldnt have to pay money or anything. If they are still together, they should adopt it out.

Its all very relationship specific, its hard to generalize

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well turn this around... if a guy doesnt want a child he doesnt have to have sex either right? so if he does he seems to want a child... oh wait...

Well no, unless you are proposing that men are given control over pregnancy.

The point i was trying to make is, men dont get a say. Why should THEY be responsoble for somthing they have no control over.

A women, because she is the one who gets pregnant, does have all the control. This means that the guy has no power and assuming you live in a decent country with safe abortion clinics then the woman has all the power.

It doesnt matter is the father is opposed to abortion as he doesnt get to determin what the women does with her body. So if you want to live in a fair society its pointless to ask him to be responsible for it.

[chimx]

yeah, the guy has no power. he couldn't help but ejaculate inside her.

[EwokUtopia]

Men shouldnt have a say in it, if you get a woman pregnant and dont want to have a child, but she does, too fucking bad, you better get ready to pay child support.

[ReD_ReBeL]

I cant believe some of the sexist fucking shit coming out of your mouths(or fingers). "the man should have no say whtsoever". What a bunch of crap!. It takes two people to make a baby therefore it is the responsibility of the 2 parents to act maturely and sensibley. The baby is as much the fathers as it is the mothers.

[EwokUtopia]

After it comes out, before it is the womans choice absolutely. Of course the men should have a say, I was perhaps hasty with my words, but the womans choice is final.