Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

Captain Adverse said:

(Minnie, I added you to provide support for your points using the links to medical procedures below)


...

First, as has been stated by other members, not all sex leads to pregnancy. That's because a woman is not always "ripe" for pregancy. A woman is well-aware of her monthly cycle and can pretty much avoid sex when she is at greatest risk of unwanted pregnancy. Remember, the woman is in control of whether to have sex or not...

Click to expand...

No, a woman is not always aware of her monthy cycle.

Some women , especially those who do not have regular periods ( women with PCOS for example) have no idea when ovulation occurs/will occur.

If you don't have regular cycles or have recently been on hormonal birth control, you may have trouble knowing when you ovulate. The day you ovulate during your monthly cycle is unique to each woman, and it can vary from month to month, even when everything is normal.

Click to expand...

Discovery Health "Can you get pregnant any time in your monthly cycle?"

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Ummm, this is not about what's best for the man. It's about what's best for the child.

Click to expand...

That only comes into play if there is a child. Then, apparently, you ignore the issues I raise about being forced to deal with unwanted family responsibilities. It is one thing to marry and expect to have a child. Personal religious morality notwithstanding, it is quite another thing to engage in extramarital sex and suddenly find yourself burdened with a child.

The woman has the absolute ability in a voluntary sexual encounter to prevent an unwanted birth from occurring. She can limit such activity to "safe" periods of the month, add contraceptives and require the male wear one too. She can also purchase morning after pills and take one after each sexual encounter.

In the unlikely event she still get's pregnant somehow, she can seek help at any abortion counseling center. SHE has absolute control over the situation. The man in all this becomes a (nervous? frightened?) bystander with no control at all.

A "child" never enters the picture until the final decision whether or not to abort is made in favor of NOT aborting. Even then, it is in the best interests of the child not to have to deal with a parent who hates it.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

I highlighted the relevant part ...

... Every birth includes a male sperm donor. The only difference is the method employed make the donation.

Click to expand...

Very true.

minnie616 said:

No because most states require that that the doctor determine if the fetus is viable on a fetus 22 weeks or more gestation before an abortion is performed.

If you look at the Kansas abortion stats they ask if the fetus is viable.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf

Click to expand...

If ones business is to provide abortions, I'm not sure I'd trust that judgment on viability as it is a clear conflict of interest and is subject to the bias of that so called DR.'s investigation. Secondly, inviability is an artificial justification, viability is not determinative of potential life, life already exists. Is that life dependant? Yes. Is that life distinct from the mother? Yes. Now you say if separated from the mother, the fetus has no chance of survival. I would suggest that neither would her arm if she chose to dissect and discard it.

Captain Adverse said:

That only comes into play if there is a child. Then, apparently, you ignore the issues I raise about being forced to deal with unwanted family responsibilities. It is one thing to marry and expect to have a child. Personal religious morality notwithstanding, it is quite another thing to engage in extramarital sex and suddenly find yourself burdened with a child.

The woman has the absolute ability in a voluntary sexual encounter to prevent an unwanted birth from occurring. She can limit such activity to "safe" periods of the month, add contraceptives and require the male wear one too. She can also purchase morning after pills and take one after each sexual encounter.

In the unlikely event she still get's pregnant somehow, she can seek help at any abortion counseling center. SHE has absolute control over the situation. The man in all this becomes a (nervous? frightened?) bystander with no control at all.

A "child" never enters the picture until the final decision whether or not to abort is made in favor of NOT aborting. Even then, it is in the best interests of the child not to have to deal with a parent who hates it.

Click to expand...

But it's not in the childs best interest to not have both parents financially supporting it, even if one or both hates it

minnie616 said:

No, a woman is not always aware of her monthy cycle.

Some women , especially those who do not have regular periods ( women with PCOS for example) have no idea when ovulation occurs/will occur.

Discovery Health "Can you get pregnant any time in your monthly cycle?"

Click to expand...

Granted, that "some" women may not be able to time their exact periods. However your own article citation states:

...No health or age concerns and perfect timing of sex before you ovulate and you still only have about a 20% chance of concieving in any given month.

Click to expand...

...and that is when you are TRYING to get pregnant. In any case MOST women are aware of their cycles so my point still stands.

Captain Adverse said:

Granted, that "some" women may not be able to time their exact periods. However your own article citation states:



...and that is when you are TRYING to get pregnant. In any case MOST women are aware of their cycles so my point still stands.

Click to expand...

And in MOST cases, the potential father agrees with the mothers decision, so your point is destroyed using your own argument

sangha said:

But it's not in the childs best interest to not have both parents financially supporting it, even if one or both hates it

Click to expand...

This is not a pro-life vs pro-choice argument Sangha. The right to abort is a given, whether you agree with it or not.

Thus THIS discussion is about responsibility after a woman makes a unilateral decision to keep the child. Currently she is assured of forcing the male to pay for her decision financially for at least 18 years, and emotionally for the rest of their lives.

Captain Adverse said:

...

Finally, I would like to point out that during the first nine weeks of the pregnancy there are non-surgical MEDICAL methods of aborting the developing fetus. That means there is time to inform the male, find out how he feels about things, and if he does NOT wish "marriage and family" the female can assess the situation and simply take some medicine to induce the abortion. No invasive surgery required.

....

Click to expand...

I would just like to point out that 9 weeks is 9 weeks gestation which really means 7 weeks since conception.
Gestation is counted from the first day of the period. That means 7 weeks from the time the egg was fertiled . Most women do not suspect they are pregnant until they miss their period.
If a woman is regular a couple of weeks will pass before she misses her period . So most likly there will be less than 30 days to inform the man and use the chemical abortion if they both decide they want to take that abortion route.

Captain Adverse said:

This is not a pro-life vs pro-choice argument Sangha. The right to abort is a given, whether you agree with it or not.

Thus THIS discussion is about responsibility after a woman makes a unilateral decision to keep the child. Currently she is assured of forcing the male to pay for her decision financially for at least 18 years, and emotionally for the rest of their lives.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand it and think that it is the just way to deal with it.

Under the law, both parents have just as much rights as the other. There's nothing unfair about the law

sangha said:

And in MOST cases, the potential father agrees with the mothers decision, so your point is destroyed using your own argument

Click to expand...

No Sangha, the point being made was that even when people are trying to have a child there is only a 20% chance per month of success. Thus, people engaging in recreational sex do not automatically expect a child to result even if they are doing it "unsafely."

Yet a woman has absolute control over voluntary sexual activity and can take many steps to reduce that "20% chance" to nearly zero.

Captain Adverse said:

That only comes into play if there is a child.

Click to expand...

Of course it does, but then, I was responding to where you said, "men should have the option of "opting-out" of responsibility for the woman's absolute choice." That implies there is a child, otherwise, there's nothing to "opt out" from.

Captain Adverse said:

Then, apparently, you ignore the issues I raise about being forced to deal with unwanted family responsibilities.

Click to expand...

Of course I ignore it. It's irrelevant. As I said, the needs of the child outweigh the needs of the man.

Captain Adverse said:

The woman has the absolute ability in a voluntary sexual encounter to prevent an unwanted birth from occurring. She can limit such activity to "safe" periods of the month, add contraceptives and require the male wear one too. She can also purchase morning after pills and take one after each sexual encounter.

Click to expand...

That's the benefit of being a woman. As was said earlier, when men can get pregnant, they should be entitled to those same benefits.

Captain Adverse said:

In the unlikely event she still get's pregnant somehow, she can seek help at any abortion counseling center. SHE has absolute control over the situation. The man in all this becomes a (nervous? frightened?) bystander with no control at all.

Click to expand...

Of course she has absolute control. She is the one who is absolutely pregnant. It's her body. Men are the bystander at that point. Once there's a child, both are responsible to raise the child.

Captain Adverse said:

A "child" never enters the picture until the final decision whether or not to abort is made in favor of NOT aborting. Even then, it is in the best interests of the child not to have to deal with a parent who hates it.

Click to expand...

The best thing for the child is to be supported. Support comes in many ways. In the case you describe, where a man hates his own child, it's still better to receive financial support, if nothing else, than it is to receive nothing at all.

johndylan1 said:

... Now you say if separated from the mother, the fetus has no chance of survival. I would suggest that neither would her arm if she chose to dissect and discard it.

Click to expand...

An arm is not a life and neither is a non viable fetus.
The non viable fetus only exsists because of the life forces of the pregnant woman.
If she dies it cannot survive.

TurtleDude said:

Not the issue

Click to expand...

Okay...let's spice up your scenario.

Guy's out on the town

Guy meets girl

They bull**** around abit and start discussing going to her place

The girl asked the guy..."are you married", he says "No."

He lies....

They get to her place and hop in bed and he says, "are you protected"...which since he's married that's not really something he'd ask...but....

She said yes, but lies...

Kaboom...a pregnancy occurs as a result of these two liars have a wild romp

What do believe should be the legal outcome of that pregnancy be?

__________________________________________

TD...doesn't this issue really revolve around something similar to following?:

Most pro-choice will say that a woman is not giving automatic consent to conception when she has sex. If that's true, then why is a man legally and financially bound to a conception if one occur... especially if the man also didn't give consent to conception when having sex.

The following has been scenario is suggested by numerous men...

What if there was a law...similar to Roe v. Wade...in which it states that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy by a man...and not the woman. Then during the period of non-viability of the embryo or fetus, that the sperm donor can legally declare that he doesn't want to be a father and will have the CHOICE to waiver out of any responsibility for the pregnancy or a child given birth to.

Now, since the declaration must be made during the non-viability period...then the woman can decide if she wants to have an abortion so that she herself doesn't have the burdens involved....or she "chooses" to carry the embryo or fetus to full-term.

If the woman choose abortion...then he pays half.

Now the above sounds simple enough, however.....

What might be the objections of a woman for such a law being enacted?

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Of course it does, but then, I was responding to where you said, "men should have the option of "opting-out" of responsibility for the woman's absolute choice." That implies there is a child, otherwise, there's nothing to "opt out" from.


Of course I ignore it. It's irrelevant. As I said, the needs of the child outweigh the needs of the man.

Click to expand...

It is completely relevant. Children are not born in a vacuum. A child has to deal with the mother's emotions about the disinterested father, her own second thoughts about having a baby under such circumstances, and the child's own emotions about having a father who wants no part of it. Something NONE would have to deal with if the woman made an informed decision to accept full and sole responsibility for that decision.

Sheik Yerbuti said:

The best thing for the child is to be supported. Support comes in many ways. In the case you describe, where a man hates his own child, it's still better to receive financial support, if nothing else, than it is to receive nothing at all.

Click to expand...

The child will get all the support it needs from the parent who chose to bring it into the world...alone. That should be a part of her decision making process, can she do it on her own. If not, then abort. Or if she is and has always been Pro-Life, have no sex until marriage. :shrug:

minnie616 said:

An arm is not a life and neither is a non viable fetus.
The non viable fetus only exsists because of the life forces of the pregnant woman.
If she dies it cannot survive.

Click to expand...

1. This is the central point of the issue. A fetus pre 22 weeks is not a life in your mind, it is in mine. Can we settle this with a scientific testing of tissue that makes up the 21 week old fetus? I'll place all my marbles on a bet that that tissue is living.

2. You just equated the "nonviable" fetus to an appendage. Really?

3. Would you find it rational to open a medical clinic with the Idea that the dr. would be cutting off perfectly good arms and disposing of them, having public advocacy groups advertise and promote this idea, and further try to convince women it is in their best interest to consider this as an option that might improve their life?

Captain Adverse said:

No Sangha, the point being made was that even when people are trying to have a child there is only a 20% chance per month of success. Thus, people engaging in recreational sex do not automatically expect a child to result even if they are doing it "unsafely."

Yet a woman has absolute control over voluntary sexual activity and can take many steps to reduce that "20% chance" to nearly zero.

Click to expand...

And a man has absolute control over voluntary sexual activity and can take many steps to reduce that "20% chance" to nearly zero.

sangha said:

And a man has absolute control over voluntary sexual activity and can take many steps to reduce that "20% chance" to nearly zero.

Click to expand...

Wrong again, with your one-track "I can reverse everything back on you" methodology. Men, especially younger males, have limited control over their sex drives.

On the other hand women have all the control. They chose who to sleep with from the many continuous offers men make, and then have complete control over how things are going to go once they make that choice. All the male cares about in a recreational sexual encounter is "completion" (hopefully while satisfying the woman too), so if the female insists he use protection he WILL use protection. Even then as an after-option, pro-life or pro-choice, a woman has the morning after pill.

Captain Adverse said:

Wrong again, with your one-track "I can reverse everything back on you" methodology. Men, especially younger males, have limited control over their sex drives.

On the other hand women have all the control. They chose who to sleep with from the many continuous offers men make, and then have complete control over how things are going to go once they make that choice. All the male cares about in a recreational sexual encounter is "completion" (hopefully while satisfying the woman too), so if the female insists he use protection he WILL use protection. Even then as an after-option, pro-life or pro-choice, a woman has the morning after pill.

Click to expand...

That is just nonsense.

Women have a sex drive too, and both men and women have equal rights and ability to make decisions about their voluntary behavior.

sangha said:

And a man has absolute control over voluntary sexual activity and can take many steps to reduce that "20% chance" to nearly zero.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I remember, did you use the voluntary sexual activity line over on the thread discussing homosexual choice? Just curious.

Captain Adverse said:

It is completely relevant. Children are not born in a vacuum. A child has to deal with the mother's emotions about the disinterested father, her own second thoughts about having a baby under such circumstances, and the child's own emotions about having a father who wants no part of it. Something NONE would have to deal with if the woman made an informed decision to accept full and sole responsibility for that decision.

Click to expand...

Said child is suffering anyway from having a biological father who wants no part in their life. It doesn't benefit that child to also take away their financial support. It only benefits the man. Again, the needs of the child outweigh the needs of the man.

Captain Adverse said:

The child will get all the support it needs from the parent who chose to bring it into the world...alone. That should be a part of her decision making process, can she do it on her own. If not, then abort. Or if she is and has always been Pro-Life, have no sex until marriage. :shrug:

Click to expand...

The same holds true for men ... if you want to make absolutely certain you don't have a child, don't have sex until marriage.

joko104 said:

Ok, I understand you are not pro-life. Just pro-deadbeat parenting, ie pro total abandonment of a man's own child if the woman won't do what he demands of her. In reality that then isn't just his demanding she abort, but any demand he wants to make about anything.

What do you thin, in general, are a father's ethical responsibility towards his own children? Apparently you think it is only $$$.

Click to expand...

it is a clump of cells so there is no other responsibility to a clump of cells at this time other than money. the cells are not a person to current law.

minnie616 said:

In the USA abortion is not legal without limits.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you are wrong. Some states have set limits but the federal allowance of pregnancy if for complete and outright abortion at any time before delivery.

lizzie said:

I personally think it's the woman's responsibility to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant since it is her body, and solely her choice when it comes to the future of the baby.

Click to expand...

It takes two to tango. Both parties have the responsibility of making sure that the woman doesn't get pregnant.

ChrisL said:

But the reason for that is because the woman has to deal with a "procedure" on her body no matter what choice is made. The man does not have that burden.

Click to expand...

It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.

johndylan1 said:

Wow! This poll is a window into the soul of our society. Having the majority believe that the most important objective is to relieve one self from the natural consequence and the responsibility for an act that they freely engaged in is telling. with the truly defenseless and innocent paying the price. God help us all!

Click to expand...

There is no g_d involved here, nor should there be.
Times change. Laws need to keep up with the changes.

shrubnose said:

Any man who doesn't want to be responsible for a baby should avoid engaging in activity that produces babies.

Pretty simple, eh?

Click to expand...

What is even simpler would be making the woman 100% responsible for the outcome of what she allows into her body.

Mr. Invisible said:

It takes two to tango. Both parties have the responsibility of making sure that the woman doesn't get pregnant.

Click to expand...

We are past that point.
She is pregnant and presently gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not to burden the man. Which is wrong and unfair
Giving the man an effective right removes the unfairness.