Abortion: What About a Man's Choice?
With all this talk we hear about abortion and a woman's choice, I often wonder - What about a man's choice? The unborn child is just as much the man's baby as the woman's, so why is she in sole control of what happens to it? The child develops in her body, but this does not diminish the fact that this is also his child. What if the guy really wants his child to be born and is willing to take responsibility, but the girl decides to terminate the pregnancy? Is it not completely unfair that a male has absolutely no say in whether his child will be kept or aborted? Would he not be anguished about this for the rest of his life and feel just as a woman who deeply regrets having an abortion feels? To all you guys reading this, if you were stuck in the same situation (got a girl pregnant), how would you feel knowing that she is aborting your child and you can do nothing about it?
Men Have A Say
Side Score: 121
|
 |
Men Have No Say
Side Score: 117
|
|
|
|
|
to a certain degree men have a say, becuase the child is just as much the man's as it is the womans. abortion does not just effect women. my friend is a male and his ex girlfriend had an abortion of his child and it absolutely devestated him. so my question to you is, why is it only thought to be the womans loss?? Side: euqal for both sexes
Because it's "her body" and she can "do whatever she wants with it." Truth is, it may be something within her body, but it is another life- her own child- that is living within her body. And this is also a life that was created because of the father! So I agree that men should have a say. Side: Men Have A Say
"Truth is, it may be something within her body, but it is another life- her own child- that is living within her body." Truth is that it is a mass of differentiated cells that are developing into a potential life. A child is the developmental stage AFTER birth. Calling an embryo or fetus a child is just romanticising the pregnancy, which is a process of development. "And this is also a life that was created because of the father! So I agree that men should have a say." It's the potential for life. Biologically, it is not life until it can maintain seven principles that make it a living organism. An embryo/fetus is unable to maintain homeostasis and metabolism while in utero; therefore it is not "life" yet. Secondly, the man (since he's not a father until AFTER birth) deposited sperm into a woman's body, that is all, he had no bearing on whether his sperm fuses with her egg and he definitely has no control over the development of said fertilised egg. Side: men have no say
"to a certain degree men have a say, becuase the child is just as much the man's as it is the womans." No. The man does not have the rights to a woman's uterus just because his sperm fused with her egg. "Child" is the developmental stage AFTER birth. "my friend is a male and his ex girlfriend had an abortion of his child and it absolutely devestated him. so my question to you is, why is it only thought to be the womans loss??" He should have discussed his desire that he was having sex to procreate BEFORE he copulated with a woman. Women who abort their pregnancy do not think of it as loss. To some it may be with regret, but it is not a loss - if your friend was devastated, he should seek councelling, since he is grieving the loss of a potential life, he should be devastated each time he ejaculates and it doesn't result in pregnancy since that is the potential of a life as well. Side: men have no say
1
point
wow you are one ignorant SOB. Last time I checked ejaculating into a washcloth vs. having sex/making love were two different things (maybe not to you because you have no heart or soul) but my ex girlfriend talked me into intentionally having a child with her and aborted it every time she got morning sickness. How messed up is that? Telling a person that a family is about to begin and once she is lucky enough to get pregnant run along to have an abortion just because on that particular day it made her feel bad. I am in the process of suing the shit out of her because phone calls and text messages were saved and this has cause irrefutable psychological damage. I know its a womans body blah blah blah....but when the woman convinces a man its the right time then lets him fall in love with that child, it then becomes a couple's choice...not just her selfish needs or wants. Side: Men Have A Say
4
points
I believe any man who would relish having that child should be able to have a say in whether or not the woman brings the baby to term. Having said that we now run into the issues of how to bring this about in an amicable and fair way and who will take responsibility for the child. Will it be he, she or both? What if one party, in this case the man, changes his mind at the last minute when it's too late to abort? I think the only way to bring about these changes is to have a legally binding contract between the two parties so that neither can back away and leave one of the parties to fend for themselves. That simply wouldn't be right. People often go through many "changes" when a pregnancy is involved. Not everyone knows what to do at the exact time pregnancy is established. What happens when one of the parties suddenly has an epiphany and realizes they do not love the other? All decisions must be made prior to the cut-off time for safe abortion so there is much to be considered and it is not a decision that can be made lightly. My take on it is that the man should have a say and not be cut out of the loop simply because it's her body! It was also her body and her choice to take the risk of pregnancy. Side: Men should have their say in abortion
4
points
Sweetheart, men, by law, must either raise the child with the mother or pay child support. The courts are too tied up to deal with this already existing legal obligation. Men constantly skip out on their duties; leave town, refuse to pay child support, and, sometimes, earn too little for it to even matter. "My take on it is that the man should have a say and not be cut out of the loop simply because it's her body! It was also her body and her choice to take the risk of pregnancy." Really now? Even if both consented to sex, the condom did not break or the birth control didn't work, how do you justify allowing the man to have control over the woman's body? Why does the man, who is under no risk from pregnancy and its many and possibly deadly complications, have equal say with regards to the birth? Men do not go through any of the suffering and pain of child-birth, none of the danger, why are they allowed absolute power over the woman's body? In the end, the man has the power; if they both agree to abort or give birth it is fine, but if the woman does not want the child but the man does the man is the one who gets to make the decision. Side: Men Have No Say
8
points
Hello Angelo! I think you'd be better off reading my original answer than calling me "Sweetheart." After all you don't know me and the term is reserved for very few. I did mention some of the issues that would be up for discussion. Really now...I never said that a man has absolute control over a woman's body. He should have a say since it is his child. Did it ever occur to you that he may wish to have that child no matter what? Your point is moot. It's no fault of his or hers that the woman carries that child. It was designed that way! Deadly complications? This is 2008 and not the time of child bed fever! There is so much testing available to ascertain whether or not the child will be born healthy it's truly amazing. If the woman were at risk from "deadly complications" I should think that too would be taken into consideration and hopefully would be a clear case for abortion no matter what the man desires. It's a complex issue in which there is much to be resolved between the two parties and even the courts, should it come to that, but I do believe a man should be able to make a case for full term if he indeed wants that child. Side: Men should have their say in abortion
Angelo in Women v Men "Women are not equal to men; their representation in government, economic institutions, and social institutions (as leaders) are not prominent given their numerical parity with their opposite gender. Women are underpaid, overworked, and are rarely in positions of power and authority. This, though changing, still leaves them at a disadvantage to men. The reason for this; though, is not any biological differences (by all accounts women are actually stronger and healthier than men). The difference is accounted for in the women's perceptions of themselves, what they feel their place is, their unwillingness to engage in economic, social, or even violent conflict. This stems from social indoctrination, familial indoctrination, and their own inability to break free from these influences and knock down the structures that oppress them. If women are going to become equal to men they are first going to have to become as ruthless, cutthroat, strong, courageous, and aggressive as men. Women are going to have to show themselves to be the strong creatures that they are; women are going to have to take their rightful place as masters of their own destiny, by any means necessary. Women can't be victims anymore; they must train themselves to fight, they must teach their daughters to fight (not just with Karate classes but showing them to stand up for themselves in a number of ways). Every woman should know how to defend herself; legally, physically, economically, socially; they must make men know they cannot be taken advantage of. Every culture, every nation, every class, every religion, every ethnicity, each gender; sexuality; the only way they achieved equality, dominion, freedom, and security is through their ability to defend themselves and maintain their status as free and independent beings. If women are to break free of their chains they must do so in kind." - gives angelo big hug - Shhh, it's okay, they can't hurt you anymore, let it go. Side: hugs
I don't think you understand the significance of the argument - "it's her body." If you try to force a woman to bring an infant to term against her will you are essentially treating her as if you owned her. You are taking away her right to autonomy and self-agency. She's not a human being anymore, she's a breeding machine. The issue of owning another person's body is vastly more important than a man's desire to raise the child. I'm sorry, but we just don't allow people to own other people in this country anymore. Men get do cut out of the loop because pregnancy doesn't happen to them. It isn't fair. Life isn't fair. You really ought to get over it. Side: Men Have No Say
"I believe any man who would relish having that child should be able to have a say in whether or not the woman brings the baby to term." Then the man should make it clear that he is having sex for procreation only and let the woman know in advance that he only views her as an incubator. "Having said that we now run into the issues of how to bring this about in an amicable and fair way and who will take responsibility for the child." That's only if the woman chose to remain pregnant since a child is the developmental stage AFTER birth. Having said that, responsibility for the child has nothing to do with abortion. "Not everyone knows what to do at the exact time pregnancy is established." That's why it should be left up to the woman and her doctor - the man who's sperm fertilised her egg would know less of what to do than her own doctor. "All decisions must be made prior to the cut-off time for safe abortion so there is much to be considered and it is not a decision that can be made lightly." Neither should entering into parenthood be made lightly either. "My take on it is that the man should have a say and not be cut out of the loop simply because it's her body!" Why should he have a say over her body because his sperm fused with her egg and is attached to her uterine wall? "It was also her body and her choice to take the risk of pregnancy." Oh, I see, it was HER risk of pregnancy but the man wants the choice as to what to do with it once it occurs? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Her choice was to consent to allow a man to deposit his sperm, not have his sperm fuse with her egg and thus, enter into parenthood. Side: men have no say
4
points
My opinion on this subject has to take a near middle road because of the fact that the term "abortion" here is held in such ambiguous terms. In a local setting, the man most definitely has a choice on the outcome of his unborn baby. Yes, the woman in the situation must bear the child and must go through the 9 months of development, but the man in the relationship has contributed half of his DNA to the creation of that baby. It's just as much his as it is hers, therefore the man should have some sort of input on what happens to the baby. On a more global level though, where the morality of abortion is being debated and such, the man does not have the same right of input. In this case, he has no ownership over any of the potential babies in question and the fight is more about a woman's right to use her body as she finds fit--a natural right. So that's where the devision lies, whether or not this debate takes place on the local or global level. If it's on the former, then I must say yes, a man has every right to "choice" that does a woman. Side: Unclear Definition
Both sides do the man and the woan. They both are in it together so it is wrong to exclude either one I think. Side: Men Have A Say
"...because of the fact that the term "abortion" here is held in such ambiguous terms." There is no other term for abortion than "the early termination of a pregnancy". What is so ambiguous about that? It is what it is. "In a local setting, the man most definitely has a choice on the outcome of his unborn baby." Really? Why would a man get the choice into a woman's uterus because his sperm was deposited and fused with her egg? Why should a mass of cells get more rights than a woman? She's not an incubator. "...but the man in the relationship has contributed half of his DNA to the creation of that baby." So? The woman's uterus in which the fertilised egg is attached is 100% the woman's. What does a global and local setting have to do with anything? Side: men have no say
It's sketchy because you have to ask what the relationship is. Like a rapist shouldn't have a say, but I think a husband, or even a boyfriend should have some say. I'm really torn on the issue so I'll distract you all with stats while I make a sneaky exit from the arguement... Side: Abortion
"It's sketchy because you have to ask what the relationship is." No, it's not - the only relationship here is the implantation that takes place INSIDE the woman's body. "Like a rapist shouldn't have a say, but I think a husband, or even a boyfriend should have some say." Oh, so, fertilisation happens and all of sudden men can control a woman's body part? The man deposits sperm so women must give up control of their uterus because one of those little buggars went and fused with her egg? Your stats are from a faith-based endorsed, biased website that uses propaganda to romanticise a process of a potential life and a medical procedure as "bad". If you want real stats, use the Guttmacher Institute or the Centre for Disease Control which both monitor abortions in an unbiased, non-judgemental manner. Side: men have no say
You misunderstand. I mean, have a say within the context of their relationship if they are married or living together. I don't mean a man should have any legal say at all, it's her body. Like as in "Honey, I'm pregnant" then the male may reply, "Yeah!" or "Boo!" And they should come to a decision. But it's her choice at the end of the day. Side: men have no say
men have a say cause the baby is just as much theirs as the woman who is having the child. the abortion will affect the man as much as the woman. the baby is the mans as much as it is the womans. you may be thinking that just because the woman is having the baby it should just be her choice but it should also be the males choice as well. Side: Abortion
"men have a say cause the baby is just as much theirs as the woman who is having the child." Nope, men do not own a woman's uterus because he deposited sperm that fused with her egg. "the abortion will affect the man as much as the woman." Really? It's a medical procedure, how does it affect the man when he doesn't have to go for surgery? "the baby is the mans as much as it is the womans." This only works AFTER birth, since the uterus is 100% the woman's and that's where the mass of differentiated cells are lodged. "you may be thinking that just because the woman is having the baby it should just be her choice but it should also be the males choice as well." Nope, I'm not thinking that. I'm thinking the uterus belongs to the woman, not the man. Side: men have no say
so many of you seem to be disputing "who has rights to a womans uterus" when it's not the uterus we are talking about, it's the foetus we are talking about, a biological entity made up of 50% of a woman and 50% of a man. You annot have a foetus without equal shares of both man and woman to begin with. If women don't want the pressure of abort or not abort then they should keep their legs shut or use appropriate birthcontrol. If a man doesn't want the pressure of abort or not abort then they should keep their manhood in their pants or use appropriate birth control. And while we are on the subject, how many of you would be arguing the same points if it was THE MAN who carried the child for 9 months.... (btw, i am not a man, just Devils Advocate) Side: Men Have A Say
1
point
I Think Men Have a say! Because the child is just as much his as it is hers.....it took two to make it so the decision should be made by two! It's not fair to destroy the life of a mans child go your own personal reasons that's just selfish and stupid and childish BEYOND MEASURE!!! Side: Men Have A Say
Manitoba is a Canadian prairie province which was brought into Confederation in 1870 after the Red River Rebellion. The area has been inhabited for thousands of years, with European contact made in the 17th century. The province has over 10,000 lakes, and has a largely continental climate due to its mostly flat topography. Side: Men Have A Say
"Consider this. If the mother of my child were to just dump him in a trash can without my say, i would probably kill her." Consider this: if it were a child dumped in a trash can, it would be considered child abuse, not abortion. And if you would kill her? Well, that's murder and punishable by law. Side: men have no say
1
point
the woman has no control over the development of said fertilized egg neither, do you honestlt think that a pregnant woman gets up in the morning and thinks "oh, I will develop my babies ears today, oh i will make my baby have downs syndrome today, Oh i will work on the little mite's legs today...." Side: Men Have A Say
1
point
2
points
If there are health complications or she dies, its as much the womans fault as it is the mans. After all she made the choice to have the kid. She wasn't at gun point and she could've gotten out of any dangerous situation had there been one. It was her choice as much as the mans. Even if she did it for the man, IT WAS HER CHOICE. Why don't you understand that? Side: Men Have A Say
1
point
That would all be decided in court in front of a jury of your peers. If the health risks are too dangerous, wouldn't you think that the woman's atorney would bring it up in court? That could very well be what decides if the child is born or not. And if you want to make it easier and less time consuming, just say "she is unable to have the baby because of these reasons. . . " there. End of case. Side: Men Have A Say
|
8
points
Are you bloody kidding me? There is extreme pain, physical and mortal danger, and the ability (and likely-hood) of the man simply dropping his responsibilities and leaving the mother to raise the child. Even if the man was serious about rearing the child; he is not going to go through the pain and danger of child-birth. The rate (2004) of "Maternal Mortality" (Death by pregnancy) is 13 out of 100,000 thousand. It isn't likely, but it is certainly a problem. http://www.medicalnewstoday. Even if the pregnancy didn't result in death there are a number of common and likely health impacts that range from near-term, long-term, and permanent damage. Men, however, have a 0% chance of dieing as a direct result of pregnancy, there are no health risks, no physical sacrifices, nothing. Men do not have a say; men do not get to control how women use their bodies; especially when the woman's life is at stake. Unless men are under the same risks the fact that they blissfully ejaculated into a woman does not entitle them to control over her uterus, her health, and in some cases her life. Side: Men Have No Say
what about... his child? you talk all about the mother, nothing about the child that is both of theirs... .13%? that's actually too little for anyone to care about. so why are you caring? i think, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex. especially with a dude who may not want her offing his spawn. keep in mind, i'm pro abortion. Side: Men Have A Say
3
points
That .13% is 31,000 women a YEAR. Over the course of ten years that is 310,000 women (larger than many cities in this country). I guess if 31,000 women a year aren't important to you, that's your problem. The fact that 31,000 women a year die from pregnancy and a total of 0 men do also doesn't seem to matter to you. Oh well, no big deal, those women shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want their lives to be decided by men. "i think, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex. especially with a dude who may not want her offing his spawn." I don't see how this gives a man the right to decide her fate and essentially control her uterus. You could just as easily say that if the dude didn't want to have his fetus aborted he shouldn't have gotten a woman pregnant who didn't want children. The only thing that tips the scales is the fact that 0.0% of men are at risk from birth and go through none of the inherent pain while .13% of women could die, all of them have to go through the massive pain of child birth, and all women have their health impacted in some way due to it. You may be pro-abortion, but you are decidedly anti-woman. Side: Men Have No Say
"i think, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex. especially with a dude who may not want her offing his spawn." So, let me understand here, you state that she shouldn't have had sex? Or better yet, she should discuss the man's stance toward the "spawn" in the event that such may occur before she has sex? Don't put the blame on the woman and then tell her that she must give up her uterus because the man wants his "spawn". "keep in mind, i'm pro abortion." To be pro-abortion, one must be for an abortion for every pregnancy and kind of discounts that any man should have a choice about his "spawn". Pro-abortion is not about choice, it's an absolute only option. Side: men have no say
You said... Men, however, have a 0% chance of dieing as a direct result of pregnancy, there are no health risks, no physical sacrifices, nothing. While it may be true there are no physical sacrifices, there are numerous psychological and financial sacrifices that a man makes. Having a child isn't easy for anyone. Not for the woman or the man. Then there's the adjustment of having a kid, and let's not forget the fact that the man may have mental problems (like bi-polar) which might make him unable to properly raise a kid. Then there's the financial. If a woman has a child and the man leaves her, she can get child support from that man. What if the man is supporting his wife and can barely make it as it is. Having a kid will only amplify that and cause him to possibly work 80 hour weeks for years. Of course there are other things as well. for instance, if the man is of faith, he may not want his future child to die. because the baby was made 50% from the man, shouldn't he at least have a say in what happens? While i'm pro-abortion, i think a man should at least know and have a say in what goes on. But the final decision shouldn't be his. Side: Men Have A Say
3
points
Let's go through this point by point: "While it may be true there are no physical sacrifices, there are numerous psychological and financial sacrifices that a man makes." All of those sacrifices are carried by women, plus the danger and pain of child-birth. In most cases where only one parent is raising the child it is usually the woman, not the man. "Having a child isn't easy for anyone. Not for the woman or the man. Then there's the adjustment of having a kid, and let's not forget the fact that the man may have mental problems (like bi-polar) which might make him unable to properly raise a kid. Then there's the financial. If a woman has a child and the man leaves her, she can get child support from that man. What if the man is supporting his wife and can barely make it as it is. Having a kid will only amplify that and cause him to possibly work 80 hour weeks for years." There is a huge amount of B.S. in that, especially the last sentence. Child support is proportional to the man's income; if a man makes minimum wage that will be factored into the child support payments affixed by the judge. The whole "80 hour weeks for years" thing is something wholly made up by you, I have no idea why you decided to make stuff up but I would suggest making it a little less obvious next time. In fact, it is usually women who have to work extra hours on top of taking care of the kids because of father who skip out on their parental responsibilities. Anyways, this whole argument seems to lean towards the man not wanting the child but the woman wanting it. Are you telling me you think men should be able to force women to have abortions? No matter how unstable the man is; I don't think he should be able to force a woman to have an abortion simply because he implanted his sperm in her. He will have to pay child support if she decides to keep it; it was his choice to have sex with a woman unprotected. However, men frequently dodge child support successfully (my own biological father did just that. He owes child support to my mother, the mother of my half-brother and who knows who else. He hasn't paid a cent in a decade). "Of course there are other things as well. for instance, if the man is of faith, he may not want his future child to die. because the baby was made 50% from the man, shouldn't he at least have a say in what happens?" Let's see, so because this "religious man" impregnated a woman who doesn't share his values this "religious man" gets to decide for the woman whether the child is to be born or not? Let's not even get started the irony of this occurring between two people not even married; but if they are married (which seems rather unlikely if they both share radically different religious views) it still doesn't give the man the right to take control over the woman's body. The man has no say, he shouldn't have a say, and if his values are so different from the woman or girl he got pregnant he should look for another one. What you and those on your side don't seem to recognize is that you cannot have two people having an equal say in a particular matter to begin with. There are only two outcomes in any decision-making process two people engage in: a total consensus or an equal split. A vote of 0 to 2 or 1 to 1. What you want is two people having an equal vote but, if there is dissent, the man gets to be the tie-breaker. Essentially, this gives the man the say and the woman no say at all. I don't understand why you don't see this; it is only one or the other, or the courts which get to decide. But in any case in which your policy gets implemented the woman is the one who gets her voice silences and her body taken away from her. It's ridiculous, it really is. Side: Men Have No Say
I'm a little surprised that this conversation is still going on. Men can't have babies and they don't get to tell women what to do with their bodies, even if he is the father. Please accept this and move on. The idea that a man should sue the mother of his fetus is laughable. It would violate her right to privacy as well as doctor-patient confidentiality. She is entitled to make decisions regarding her own body privately and without having the issue dragged into a courtroom. Furthermore, if she was under some sort of ridiculous "legal" contract and secretly received an abortion, the doctor would be placed in an ethical minefield and would risk losing his medical license. Even if I agreed that men have a legal right to protect the fetus, I don't think there's a way to implement it without seriously compromising the rights of the woman. It is an unfair situation, but there's practically nothing to be done about it. Side: we sue the bastards
5
points
You're miss the point here BlueStar. It's not a matter of a man having control over a woman's body, but instead a man having some say in the future of a child that is 50% his. A random guy shouldn't have the right to walk up to a woman and say, "You can't have an abortion," yes, but the potential father of the baby has just as much a right over the unborn child as does the mother. And to say that a father wouldn't have a right to sue a mother under such conditions because "It would violate her right to privacy as well as doctor-patient confidentiality" is laughable in and of itself. Privacy isn't a factor here because the child (or fetus, whichever way you want to take it) is not just the mother's, but the father's too. For a mother to go and abort a baby without telling the father is in some ways the equivalent to having a joint checking account at a bank and having one party member terminate it without letting the other one know. The mother's ownership of her body isn't an issue here when a joint effort was made to help create the child. And that repeated "joint-effort" or "joint-ownership" viewpoint is what you're missing in all of this and is the key reason as to why a man should have a choice in abortion. Side: Men Have A Say
Manitoba is a Canadian prairie province which was brought into Confederation in 1870 after the Red River Rebellion. The area has been inhabited for thousands of years, with European contact made in the 17th century. The province has over 10,000 lakes, and has a largely continental climate due to its mostly flat topography. Side: Men Have A Say
"...but the potential father of the baby has just as much a right over the unborn child as does the mother." Except that you're forgetting that the embryo is the potential life, and not a stand-alone organism until birth. The embryo is a mass of differentiated cells that are a part of a woman's uterus - there is no legal right for a man to be involved in the process. "And to say that a father wouldn't have a right to sue a mother under such conditions because "It would violate her right to privacy as well as doctor-patient confidentiality" is laughable in and of itself." Why is it laughable? One is not a father because he deposited his sperm in a woman and it started a process. Legally, the man has no say, and legally, it is a right to privacy when it concerns any part of anyone's body. Just because sperm fused with a woman's egg doesn't make it 50% his, the uterus is 100% the woman's.
"Privacy isn't a factor here because the child (or fetus, whichever way you want to take it) is not just the mother's, but the father's too." The uterus is the woman's - it's a right to privacy because of it, not because of a mass of differentiated cells. "For a mother to go and abort a baby without telling the father is in some ways the equivalent to having a joint checking account at a bank and having one party member terminate it without letting the other one know." No, it's not. "And that repeated "joint-effort" or "joint-ownership" viewpoint is what you're missing in all of this and is the key reason as to why a man should have a choice in abortion." It is not a joint-effort or joint-ownership. What does the man do to make a potential life? He deposited sperm in a woman. Beyond that, he has no more control until the potential life becomes real. As for joint-ownership - just because he deposited his sperm does not give him a right to a woman's uterus. Side: men have no say
How many teen mothers have to drop out of high school to give birth? How about teen fathers? Giving birth to a child in unfavorable circumstances puts women at a far greater disadvantage than the men impregnating them. If a woman is trying to support herself while going to school, for example, she would have to take time off work and college to give birth and provide for the first few months (at least) of the child's upbringing. The impact this has on the course of a woman's life is profound. If the father is absent, the woman must rely on either familial or government support to survive these trying times. Even if the father is present and supportive, the woman is deprived of the empowering ability to provide for herself as well as the option to better her future. A man doesn't have to make a choice between survival/ self-sufficiency and childbearing. Women do. Side: a woman's right to choose
If those teen mothers had asked the teen fathers before the child was born whether the fetus should be aborted or not, how many teen mothers would there actually be? The teen decided to have the child, so whatever she goes through is her fault. But i bet if you ask most teen guys, they wouldn't want to have the kid. So asking what the guy thought and giving it consideration could actually help cut back on the number of teen pregnancies in the US. Either way, if i got a girl pregnant i would hope she would at least tell me. Regardless, this is a conversation couples should have BEFORE they ever have sex. This was a conversation i had with my girlfriend before we did. And we made sure both of us were on the same page. Why don't all couples just do this simple thing? It avoids a lot of problems and issues later on. In the end, a man has the right to know and the right to put his input into whatever the decision making process is. Obviously, the end decision isn't his, it's the womans. Side: Men Have A Say
Manitoba is a Canadian prairie province which was brought into Confederation in 1870 after the Red River Rebellion. The area has been inhabited for thousands of years, with European contact made in the 17th century. The province has over 10,000 lakes, and has a largely continental climate due to its mostly flat topography. Side: Men Have A Say
Yes, but if you read the above description, this debate is about when the male wants the child, is it right for the female to just abort it? So it is already past the point of having sex, it is already knowing you will have a baby and wanting to keep it, whereas your partner does not feel the same way. Is it fair for the woman to have the power to just abort the child? Side: Men should have their say in abortion
Yes, but if you read the comment you disputed, the choice for the man is in advance of any sexual activity. I think it would only be fair to let the woman know that you think of her only as an incubator. It will cut down on any stress one may feel when woman says she is terminating unintended pregnancy. Side: men have no say
Just to refresh, a woman's body is not an incubator. Nor are we talking about a baby, or a child, for that matter. We are talking about a fetus. If a woman chooses not to wait for the fetus to develop in her womb, that is certainly her choice, and her choice alone. As Loudacris said, the man's choice comes in when he decides to have sex. If he doesn't want to run the risk of having to wonder whether or not abortion is fair for a man, he should remain celibate. Side: a woman's right to choose
0
points
fe·tus /ˈfitəs/ Show Spelled[fee-tuhs] Show IPA –noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology . (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. Fetus is used to refer to the child at a particular stage of his or her development. Calling the child - and it is a child - a fetus is a very poor attempt to sanitize the act. It'd be similar to saying, "We're not talking about a young man or woman, for that matter. We're talking about an adolescent." Please, explain what the child's level of development has to do with whether or not we can kill it. Also, suppose I agree that the child can be killed at the behest of the mother with absolutely no say-so from father. It seems to me that the child is, for all intents and purposes, the sole property of the mother. The family courts certainly seem to think so. I say that during the time it's legal for the woman to have an abortion, the father can pay the cost of an abortion and simply walk away. If the woman decides to abort, no problem. If she doesn't, well, the baby's hers. No child support, no nuthin. The woman has no excuse. You're probably gonna wanna say something about how the man has responsibilities to the child he brou- blah blah blah. Anyone who supports suctioning babies out of the womb no longer has the right to say "what about the baby". If the man doesn't wanna pay the price, no whining from him when the baby's born. Any objections? Side: Men Have A Say
"Fetus is used to refer to the child at a particular stage of his or her development. Calling the child - and it is a child - a fetus is a very poor attempt to sanitize the act." Calling a fetus a child is a very poor attempt at romanticising the act of pregnancy. It doesn't "sanitize the act" (whatever act it is to that you are referring). "Please, explain what the child's level of development has to do with whether or not we can kill it." The fetus is not a stand-alone organism biologically. It cannot maintain 2 of the 7 principles that are necessary to be a "living organism". It cannot maintain homeostasis or metabolism. Development has very much to do with it since it is biologically not "alive" until it is born; therefore, one cannot kill it if it were not alive. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Journal of American Medicines Association both have concluded through research that while in utero, the fetus is in an "unconscious state"; therefore, it is not a sentient being. "It seems to me that the child is, for all intents and purposes, the sole property of the mother." The uterus is the sole property of the woman and the fetus is inhabiting it. The child (which is the developmental stage AFTER birth) is a legal responsibility to both parents. "The family courts certainly seem to think so." This is only AFTER birth as I stated above, it is a legal responsibility to both parents. If you are using a "child support" issue as your argument, it would be in your best interest to actually understand how that works as well - the Family Courts are only interested in the best interest of the child and it comes down to "status quo". "If the woman decides to abort, no problem. If she doesn't, well, the baby's hers. No child support, no nuthin." Again, you are sorely mistaken as to what "legal responsibility" means. Side: men have no say
4
points
Let's say the woman gets pregnant, but the man does not want to have the baby, at all. He doesn't want the baby to even exists. Is it right for him to say she MUST have an abortion? Absolutely not! So if he doesn't have a say in this situation, he shouldn't have a say in whether she wants or doesn't want a baby. It is in her for 9 months and it is her uterus in which the baby lives. The male is not physically affected by the baby, so he should have no doing--he should have an opinion, but should have no action. Side: Men Have No Say
The real reason that men should have no say is that until the child is born, it's a medical procedure and they have no right to tell anyone else what they can and can't have done medically. That's a matter for the patient and the doctor. Think about how a man would feel if he had, let's call it a tumor, growing inside him that may cause him some discomfort and annoyance but no serious health concerns. Say he wants his doctor to remove it. But his wife who has a say in his medical procedures due to her stake in his future (he will provide and provide for her future children) says no. Since it's not medically necessary and law allows her a say, he can't get it removed. Further, your supposing the men want to stop women from having an abortion. What about men forcing women to have abortions for babies they don't want to be responsible for. If they have any say at all, that is a real possibility. Side: men have no say
A man's choice for what? It's a mass of differentiated cells within a woman's uterus. What choice does a man have concerning the medical procedure to remove it? At the time when the majority of abortions occur, this is not a "baby", "child", etc, it's an embryo that is not a stand-alone organism as many seem to suggest that the moment of conception this mass of cells is going to function as if it were a developed baby. If the man really wanted his child to be born, he should discuss this prior to having sex in the first place. After a man ejaculates, he has no other say in the matter, it is then a part of a woman's body. It's the "pro-life" rhetoric that causes any form of stress around abortion. It's the potential of a life that the man is stressing over, he should be aware that his sperm in each ejaculation is the potential of life too - shouldn't he be just as stressed when he masturbates and it has no chance for developing further as well? Side: men have no say
1
point
That is a personal decision. If it were made a law that men have a say in the woman's abortion, it would be taking away a LOT of her freedom. Say a woman is in an abusive relationship, and she gets impregnated by her husband. She's too afraid to leave her husband because she wont have any money or place to stay. She doesn't want to bring up a child in this lifestyle so she wants to get an abortion. But her husband wants to keep the child. They go to court, but since it's a LAW that the man has a say over the 'child' she has to have it. This is ridiculous. It may be your sperm, but it's the woman's body. It may be hard for you- even devastating- but pregnancy shouldn't be taken so lightly! If your girlfriend gets pregnant, you want to keep the child (for yourself, she doesn't), and she agrees: TADA! You now have a child for yourself, and the woman didn't have any of her rights violated. This cannot be made a law. It would have SO MANY downfalls. It would do more bad than good, and violate the right a woman has over her body. End of discussion. Side: men have no say
Wow. Really just wow. Men do have a saying it dosent matter if it's in her body it's still part HIS child. Let's say then the MAN dosent want the kid. Oh but the woman does and the guy has no saying in it so here comes the kid he never wanted. Ofcourse maybe they shouldn't of had sex but it dosent change the fact. Obviously women deserve a say in it 100% however they should both be allowed to talk about it and decide together hence MARRIGE- making choices TOGETHER Side: Men Have A Say
"Let's say then the MAN dosent want the kid." Then he still has no say until after birth. The fetus is part of the woman's body until birth, there's not much he can do. However, the issue here is a legal one, as the birth of the baby now gives it status as a "person" and legally the biological father would have a legal responsibility to the child. Any decision for the man to "opt out" of this would have to be taken through court before his responsibility is removed. "Obviously women deserve a say in it 100% however they should both be allowed to talk about it and decide together hence MARRIGE- making choices TOGETHER" Men can discuss it with the woman, but ultimately the choice is the woman's - it's her body. As for "marriage", that's an option but not necessary. It still does not give the man the right to choose for a woman on any issue. Side: men have no say
Men do not have a say in what women do with their bodies. Men are not the ones who experience pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartnum shit. Unless and until they do, they do not have the right to say what a woman does with her body. My body, my right, my choice. Deal with it, you patriarchal sexist jerks. Side: Men Have No Say
1
point
|
