male abortion rights

[britishboy]

should men have a say in an abortion?

I think yes, if the reason is for example the women dosent have the funds for a child (the childs an accident probably) and the man sign a legal document accepting all legal rights and responsibilities for the child, he should be able to block the abortion

however if the reasonvis something like mothers health in danger, the father shouldnt have a say

[Harley Quinn]

I didn't realise men could carry a baby.

[Soulless]

If my wife went behind my back on an abortion, there'd be holy hell to pay.

[britishboy]

I didn't realise men could carry a baby.

they still have children, that's why I said it depends on the reason, should the birth be a problem, it's up to her, but should it just be an unwanted child, both parents should decide it's fate.

[1_21Guns]

No I don't think they should because it's ultimately the woman's decision. Can you imagine the ridicule a woman would get for carrying a baby for 9 months then just 'signing it over' to the man? It's a God damn child not a puppy. Just because his worm landed in an egg and made an embryo doesn't mean he has control over the mothers body whether she is in danger or not.

[britishboy]

No I don't think they should because it's ultimately the woman's decision. Can you imagine the ridicule a woman would get for carrying a baby for 9 months then just 'signing it over' to the man? It's a God damn child not a puppy. Just because his worm landed in an egg and made an embryo doesn't mean he has control over the mothers body whether she is in danger or not.

it's still his child, if the issue is she is poor, or the baby is an accident then he should have power, if birth then it's hers, what would you say if you carry the child for 9 months and when it's born the guy says 'sorry I didn't want it, your now solely responsible' you would say something like 'your the father, it's your responsibility' so how you recognize our responsibilities but don't want to share rights to your kid

[Shannon.]

Nope. Mostly because they're not the ones that have to carry it inside of them for 9 months.

[1_21Guns]

it's still his child, if the issue is she is poor, or the baby is an accident then he should have power, if birth then it's hers, what would you say if you carry the child for 9 months and when it's born the guy says 'sorry I didn't want it, your now solely responsible' you would say something like 'your the father, it's your responsibility' so how you recognize our responsibilities but don't want to share rights to your kid

Because you can't force responsibility upon someone. I'm for equal rights for your children but a different argument lies here because at the point of abortion, it's not a child, it's a cluster of cells with the capability to develop into a baby. My dad told my mum to have an abortion and she told him where to go, why? Because it's her body and her decision. It's a matter of a woman having rights to her own body, not a man having equal rights to what at the time is essentially a parasite inside her womb feeding off her body.

[britishboy]

Nope. Mostly because they're not the ones that have to carry it inside of them for 9 months.

Because you can't force responsibility upon someone. I'm for equal rights for your children but a different argument lies here because at the point of abortion, it's not a child, it's a cluster of cells with the capability to develop into a baby. My dad told my mum to have an abortion and she told him where to go, why? Because it's her body and her decision. It's a matter of a woman having rights to her own body, not a man having equal rights to what at the time is essentially a parasite inside her womb feeding off her body.

ok, if you get to decide the fate of our child, how about we just leave the child with you to raise? if we don't get a say in wether it is born or not we shouldnt be obligated to help

[Harry Smith]

ok, if you get to decide the fate of our child, how about we just leave the child with you to raise? if we don't get a say in wether it is born or not we shouldnt be obligated to help

Well it's nice that you can take the moral high-ground. As idealistic as your view is how would it be enforced when the baby is considered part of the womens body, if a man wants to keep it and the women doesn't then what happens? That's the problem you can't take away the absolute right of a women to have control over her body.

What if a man rapes a women, I suppose he can block an abortion as well then?

[britishboy]

Well it's nice that you can take the moral high-ground. As idealistic as your view is how would it be enforced when the baby is considered part of the womens body, if a man wants to keep it and the women doesn't then what happens? That's the problem you can't take away the absolute right of a women to have control over her body

and if the man wants to kill it and the women keep it? should that be the case we shouldnt have legal responsibility of the child

also it's fault on both men and women for having an accident child

[1_21Guns]

ok, if you get to decide the fate of our child, how about we just leave the child with you to raise? if we don't get a say in wether it is born or not we shouldnt be obligated to help

that honestly made me laugh, you're not obligated to help, nobodys forcing you to help raise the child, just like you can't force a woman to have one.

Well it's nice that you can take the moral high-ground. As idealistic as your view is how would it be enforced when the baby is considered part of the womens body, if a man wants to keep it and the women doesn't then what happens? That's the problem you can't take away the absolute right of a women to have control over her body

thank you, at least someone thinks clearly around here

[Harley Quinn]

ok, if you get to decide the fate of our child, how about we just leave the child with you to raise? if we don't get a say in wether it is born or not we shouldnt be obligated to help

If that's how you view woman and children, then yes, I'd prefer to raise the baby without your help.

[Harry Smith]

and if the man wants to kill it and the women keep it? should that be the case we shouldnt have legal responsibility of the child

also it's fault on both men and women for having an accident child

It's a man job to wear a condom, just like if I'm having sex I wouldn't expect the person receiving to have to bring protection.

What if a man rapes a woman and gets her pregnant? Under your scheme he has paternal rights to block an abortion

[britishboy]

that honestly made me laugh, you're not obligated to help, nobodys forcing you to help raise the child, just like you can't force a woman to have one.


actually your legally obligated to help fund the child, a good lawyer and brains will get you out of it but still thats how it is

remember 50% his DNA, his child, his money (child support)

If that's how you view woman and children, then yes, I'd prefer to raise the baby without your help.

my children will be planned, anyway irrelevant, if the men can't terminate the pregnancy, they shouldnt be obligated of child costs

It's a man job to wear a condom, just like if I'm having sex I wouldn't expect the person receiving to have to bring protection.

What if a man rapes a woman and gets her pregnant? Under your scheme he has paternal rights to block an abortion

read the OP

[Harry Smith]

actually your legally obligated to help fund the child, a good lawyer and brains will get you out of it but still thats how it is

remember 50% his DNA, his child, his money (child support)

hahahahah. Your not legally obligated unless your married. There aren't any laws designed to force unmarried fathers into paying for children

What if a man rapes a woman and gets her pregnant? Under your scheme he has paternal rights to block an abortion



my children will be planned, anyway irrelevant, if the men can't terminate the pregnancy, they shouldnt be obligated of child costs

That's what they all say the night the condom breaks

[1_21Guns]

actually your legally obligated to help fund the child, a good lawyer and brains will get you out of it but still thats how it is

remember 50% his DNA, his child, his money (child support)

yes, and these women who can't really afford to have this child will have the money for a decent lawyer? give over.. you're in a fantasy world here, the real world simply isn't that simple... it's a woman's body and one tiny bit of sperm is not going to change that fact therefore the man has no rights over the woman's body.

[Elysium]

I think the circumstance that you described would be the only one in which men could get a say.

[Cygnus]

Oh come on, if a woman's life is at risk and she chooses to abort to not die during childbirth and the man says "Nooooo, I totally want that baby" it would be very wrong and you know it. The woman carries the baby the woman decides, ultimately abortions are discussed most of the time but if a man had a say then there would be a lot of instability.

[Harry Smith]

actually your legally obligated to help fund the child, a good lawyer and brains will get you out of it but still thats how it is

remember 50% his DNA, his child, his money (child support)



my children will be planned, anyway irrelevant, if the men can't terminate the pregnancy, they shouldnt be obligated of child costs



read the OP

I did, the word rape isn't used in the OP

Your whole theory is that it's 50% of the man, that means that the rapist would have a legal right- you can't make it iffy and washy. You keep banging on about fathers rights saying that it's 50% of yours, but it would cause so many problems. It's a pretty childish view to hold- I wonder how you would feel if you had to carry around a baby you didn't want for 9 months because the dad wants to play happy families with his one night stand. I also don't understand why you assume that every single mum relies on the father for money. You need to stop holding views which are not backed up by facts.

You would be giving the rapist rights over a woman's body- that's just wrong.

And as Natalie pointed out above- it would take us back to the age when a man holds power over a woman's body-that's also wrong.

[britishboy]

yes, and these women who can't really afford to have this child will have the money for a decent lawyer? give over.. you're in a fantasy world here, the real world simply isn't that simple... it's a woman's body and one tiny bit of sperm is not going to change that fact therefore the man has no rights over the woman's body.

Child maintenance is regular
financial support towards the cost
of raising your child. It’s paid by
your child’s other parent if you’re
no longer together and either your
child doesn’t live with them or
spends more time living with you.

a father could get out of it but not easil

it's both the parents children 50% DNA from each

so your perfectly happy to have guy pay no support because he wanted an abortion?

[Gigablue]

I think yes, if the reason is for example the women dosent have the funds for a child (the childs an accident probably) and the man sign a legal document accepting all legal rights and responsibilities for the child, he should be able to block the abortion

If the burden on the woman was purely financial, I would agree with you. However, the woman is also burdened biologically. Even if the man accepts all legal and financial responsibility, the woman still has to give up her body the foetus.

If the man could take the foetus from the mother and gestate it himself, then he should be able to block the abortion. Since that is impossible, the woman gets the final say.

[britishboy]

If the burden on the woman was purely financial, I would agree with you. However, the woman is also burdened biologically. Even if the man accepts all legal and financial responsibility, the woman still has to give up her body the foetus.

If the man could take the foetus from the mother and gestate it himself, then he should be able to block the abortion. Since that is impossible, the woman gets the final say.

quite a thought provoking post there, at early pregnancy of can be removed and put in another women, would you support that?

[1_21Guns]

a father could get out of it but not easil

it's both the parents children 50% DNA from each

so your perfectly happy to have guy pay no support because he wanted an abortion?

I'm struggling to understand why you keep trying to make this point? It's not even a point.. who cares who's flipping DNA it is it's the woman's body and just because you knocked her up it doesn't give you some sort of deranged right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. And to answer your question sure, my dad never did and he wanted an abortion, once my parents split up when I was 14 he never gave us a penny and my mum had to declare bankrupt because of him.. money might make the world go round but it certainly doesn't give you rights over someone elses body.

[britishboy]

I'm struggling to understand why you keep trying to make this point? It's not even a point.. who cares who's flipping DNA it is it's the woman's body and just because you knocked her up it doesn't give you some sort of deranged right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. And to answer your question sure, my dad never did and he wanted an abortion, once my parents split up when I was 14 he never gave us a penny and my mum had to declare bankrupt because of him.. money might make the world go round but it certainly doesn't give you rights over someone elses body.

I'm not saying the man gets an equal right because it's not putting him at risk however many women are forced into abortions for reasons such as money and no time to raise a child. if that is the issue he could sign a paper along with her signing over all rights and responsibilities to him

[Harry Smith]

quite a thought provoking post there, at early pregnancy of can be removed and put in another women, would you support that?

Wait.

Your saying if I for example had a one night stand and the women wanted to abort it I could force her to remove the cell from her body and then shove it into another woman. Your going into the realms of fantasy. I can just imagine the conversation now

''Hey I had a one night stand and the stupid women wanted to abort it so I scoped out the foetus and shoved it in another woman. No joke''

P.S your legal knowledge is very poor- no document exists which can void either parent of a legal right or responsibly.That's physically not possible

[britishboy]

Wait.

Your saying if I for example had a one night stand and the women wanted to abort it I could force her to remove the cell from her body and then shove it into another woman. Your going into the realms of fantasy. I can just imagine the conversation now

''Hey I had a one night stand and the stupid women wanted to abort it so I scoped out the foetus and shoved it in another woman. No joke''

haha I see how that could be funny:D it still could require womens consent but more options should be there, probably would be quite cheap as well

[1_21Guns]

I'm not saying the man gets an equal right because it's not putting him at risk however many women are forced into abortions for reasons such as money and no time to raise a child. if that is the issue he could sign a paper along with her signing over all rights and responsibilities to him

why on earth would a woman want to bring a child into an environment that's not stable? what would this man then tell the child when it asked where it's mother was? "oh sorry your mum didn't have time to look after you" like seriously? Are you trying to make women look like bad guys here? If the woman wants the baby she will keep it, if she does not she will not, that is how it works and that is how it should work.

[Harry Smith]

haha I see how that could be funny:D it still could require womens consent but more options should be there, probably would be quite cheap as well

I'm sorry- I understand you feel that your jizz should have legal rights over another persons body but you haven't really thinked this through.

I'm going to sum it up simply- A woman should have 100% control over her body, if I sneeze on her I don't own her body, if I kiss her I don't own her a body. You can't justify this stupid argument- just admit that it's pretty short sighted to try and have a man extert his control over a woman

[britishboy]

why on earth would a woman want to bring a child into an environment that's not stable? what would this man then tell the child when it asked where it's mother was? "oh sorry your mum didn't have time to look after you" like seriously? Are you trying to make women look like bad guys here? If the woman wants the baby she will keep it, if she does not she will not, that is how it works and that is how it should work.

oh please how many single mothers and fathers have to explain that anyway and it's better than the most popular 'your mother was a whore and your an accident'

[1_21Guns]

oh please how many single mothers and fathers have to explain that anyway and it's better than the most popular 'your mother was a whore and your an accident'

my mum is a single mother.. and? many people wouldn't have a child because it's not a suitable time to have one, everyone knows that a stable loving family is better than one parent because children will often suffer from not having a male/female role model. I'm not saying nobody wants to be a single parent, perhaps that came across wrong, but that's not even the main point, like I said before if a woman wants to keep a baby she will, if she doesn't she won't and that's the end of it.

[britishboy]

I'm sorry- I understand you feel that your jizz should have legal rights over another persons body but you haven't really thinked this through.

I'm going to sum it up simply- A woman should have 100% control over her body, if I sneeze on her I don't own her body, if I kiss her I don't own her a body. You can't justify this stupid argument- just admit that it's pretty short sighted to try and have a man extert his control over a woman

it's not control over a women, I'm suggesting there be more options for him to keep his kid, I think I read somewhere or something your middle class? you should easily afford a child and so could take all responsibilities, would you not at least like the option? and the women would be required to give consent anyway, she is signing away legal rights

[1_21Guns]

it's not control over a women, I'm suggesting there be more options for him to keep his kid, I think I read somewhere or something your middle class? you should easily afford a child and so could take all responsibilities, would you not at least like the option? and the women would be required to give consent anyway, she is signing away legal rights

it is because if he wants the baby she has to flipping carry it for 9 months... how is that not controlling her body?

[britishboy]

it is because if he wants the baby she has to flipping carry it for 9 months... how is that not controlling her body?

her consent would still be required but it will please many people, most women who about because if their age, lack of wealth or space for a child will probably fell bad and guilty after an abortion and the father lost a child

if the wine signs over the rights she knows the baby will be fine and the father gets his child

[Harry Smith]

it's not control over a women, I'm suggesting there be more options for him to keep his kid, I think I read somewhere or something your middle class? you should easily afford a child and so could take all responsibilities, would you not at least like the option? and the women would be required to give consent anyway, she is signing away legal rights

This isn't about my wealth or what I could do... I don't want to force a woman to carry around a baby she doesn't want for 9 months,

you have the right to choose, how would you like it if you was raped tomorrow and have to give birth in 9 months with no choice?

You said this in an old abortion thread, you've always talked about being 100% pro choice and blah but in fact your pro-man

[britishboy]

This isn't about my wealth or what I could do... I don't want to force a woman to carry around a baby she doesn't want for 9 months,



You said this in an old abortion thread, you've always talked about being 100% pro choice and blah but in fact your pro-man

no, her consent would be required read what I just said to the girl and I am pro choice just think there should be more options

[Vlerchan]

Wait. Because a man manages to latch a part of himself onto the lining of some woman's womb he suddenly has the right to interfere in how she chooses to control her own body? I stated in the abortion thread that I'm against this; nine or so hours later and I haven't changed in the slightest. Whilst the zygote is admittedly made up of equal parts of the mother and equal parts of the father it's still the woman's body; and it's still the woman who has to go through a nine-ish month pregnancy; and it's still the woman who has to give birth. The male - regardless of his relationship to the woman in question - should have no legal right to exert his control over her body, ever.

Financial stability should have nothing to do with it either; woman are more than simply walking, talking wombs, the pregnancy itself is stressful experience which largely interferes with the running of her daily life; and that alone should be basis enough to allow a termination of the pregnancy, I feel.

[drew6]

I didn't realise men could carry a baby.
I didn't realise men could carry a baby.

I'm with you on this.

Only the pregnant woman gets a vote and the rest of the people on the planet can only have an opinion.

It's not like the woman wins when she has an abortion. Ya gotta believe that's a horrible day for her. Horrible memory. It's significant medical procedure and she will have to live with her decision of what she did with her body everyday after that with that knowledge or have the child and live with the responsibility of raising a child or putting it up for adoption after the kid was born. Neither option is an easy path.

At time I think I'd like to have a say so, but those are fleeting moments. The reality is I don't want that responsibility.

Because you can't force responsibility upon someone. I'm for equal rights for your children but a different argument lies here because at the point of abortion, it's not a child, it's a cluster of cells with the capability to develop into a baby. My dad told my mum to have an abortion and she told him where to go, why? Because it's her body and her decision. It's a matter of a woman having rights to her own body, not a man having equal rights to what at the time is essentially a parasite inside her womb feeding off her body.

You can call it a cluster of cells all you want, but that doesn't mean it's not alive or a life. How about this:

Let's say the cluster of cells that you're talking about is a blob with the volume one cubic centimeter. A Mars rover is trucking along and come across one of those blobs. You better believe that every major news feature story that day will be something like, "Life on Mars!".

So people should at least be honest and thoughtful about what life is. A more extreme example is if the Mars rover came across a human fetus that was a few days short of the third trimester. In that case, the headline would read something like, "Human Fetus on Mars!" or "Mars Human Baby!".

Granted, my comment isn't about abortion, but you mentioned that it's not even life and I don't think that's the case.

[Harry Smith]

no, her consent would be required read what I just said to the girl and I am pro choice just think there should be more options

Your pro choice? Just like you claim to be for LGBT when you've made at least 5 homophobic comments in the past both about me and the LGBT movment. You can't claim to be pro choice whilst taking away her rights.

The current system is fine because it allows the person carrying the baby to decide

The options are simple- the women has an abortion or she doesn't. That's it- the end

[TheBigUnit]

I personally believe the only time when a man has "rights" towards abortion is when he is married BF/GF doesnt count, anyone else agree?

[britishboy]

Your pro choice? Just like you claim to be for LGBT when you've made at least 5 homophobic comments in the past both about me and the LGBT movment. You can't claim to be pro choice whilst taking away her rights.

The option is simple- the women has an abortion or she doesn't. That's it- the end

I support the womens right to choose. I want more options

as I said in the quote you quoted

no, her consent would be required read what I just said to the girl and I am pro choice just think there should be more options

[Harry Smith]

I support the womens right to choose. I want more options

as I said in the quote you quoted

Okay- so in the realms of fantasy- if the man wants to keep it but the woman wants to get rid what happens under your brilliant scheme?

[britishboy]

Okay- so in the realms of fantasy- if the man wants to keep it but the woman wants to get rid what happens under your brilliant scheme?

if the womens problem is finances, not able to raise a child or doesn't want a child at her age she may abort, many women will feel bad but abort because it's the best decision however if she could sign over all rights to the baby before birth to the babys father, many would (not all but many) this benefits the women and man

both signatures will be required

[Jess]

It is ultimately the WOMAN'S DECISION, not his. He has the right to have a say, but no more. He should respect her choice in the end.

[britishboy]

It is ultimately the WOMAN'S DECISION, not his. He has the right to have a say, but no more. He should respect her choice in the end.

of course what I'm suggesting is more choices to get what both want in the situation

[Harry Smith]

if the womens problem is finances, not able to raise a child or doesn't want a child at her age she may abort, many women will feel bad but abort because it's the best decision however if she could sign over all rights to the baby before birth to the babys father, many would (not all but many) this benefits the women and man

both signatures will be required

Why do you assume that the man will automatically be able to afford it? That's a tad sexist.

As I said before you can't sign away your paternal rights- that's the whole point of them. You would be breaking multiple human rights laws if you passed a law allowing that. So no it's not possible for a women to sign over all her rights to the baby. She also has to carry it for the next 6 months- what women would agree to that?

Also how could the court prove that it's finances?

[Vlerchan]

if the womens problem is finances, not able to raise a child or doesn't want a child at her age she may abort, many women will feel bad but abort because it's the best decision however if she could sign over all rights to the baby before birth to the babys father, many would (not all but many) this benefits the women and man

both signatures will be required
The problem isn't finances. The problem is the fact that she's carrying a human foetus for nine months and then going through a largely painful birthing procedure - whilst objecting the whole time.

[britishboy]

Why do you assume that the man will automatically be able to afford it? That's a tad sexist.

As I said before you can't sign away your paternal rights- that's the whole point of them. You would be breaking multiple human rights laws if you passed a law allowing that. So no it's not possible for a women to sign over all her rights to the baby. She also has to carry it for the next 6 months- what women would agree to that?

Also how could the court prove that it's finances?

well if the women cant afford the baby because if money I'm assuming she doesn't have money

actually if you hit your children your rights are removed without your consent so it can be done with both, its not too far off, go on, what human right is being blocked?

a women that can't raise a baby but dosent want to abort it? even though she would it would still be unpleasant

why would it be debated in court? she's signing the rights away because of finances and he is accepting them

The problem isn't finances. The problem is the fact that she's carrying a human foetus for nine months and then going through a largely painful birthing procedure - whilst objecting the whole time.

why sign a form when you don't want to? she can have an abortion if she wants

[Vlerchan]

why sign a form when you don't want to? she can have an abortion if she wants
If she can have an abortion if she wants then that makes the potential-father's legal right to object to abortion rather redundant, doesn't it?

You're basically advocating what we currently have; the woman can go through with the pregnancy and then decide to put the baby up for adoption at the end.

[Harry Smith]

well if the women cant afford the baby because if money I'm assuming she doesn't have money

actually if you hit your children your rights are removed without your consent so it can be done with both, its not too far off, go on, what human right is being blocked?

a women that can't raise a baby but dosent want to abort it? even though she would it would still be unpleasant

why would it be debated in court? she's signing the rights away because of finances and he is accepting them



why sign a form when you don't want to? she can have an abortion if she wants

My Dad has hit me before... he still has parental rights over me. You can't sign away legal rights

Article 8 of the European convention of human rights covers it

[britishboy]

If she can have an abortion if she wants then that makes the potential-father's legal right to object to abortion rather redundant, doesn't it?

You're basically advocating what we currently have; the woman can go through with the pregnancy and then decide to put the baby up for adoption at the end.

what im suggesting is that if the dad wants the baby and the mum dose not for whatever reason, before the baby is born she can sign over the rights to the father, it must be done before to assure the mother that she will not need to raise the child

[Harry Smith]

what im suggesting is that if the dad wants the baby and the mum dose not for whatever reason, before the baby is born she can sign over the rights to the father, it must be done before to assure the mother that she will not need to raise the child

My Dad has hit me before... he still has parental rights over me. You can't sign away legal rights

Article 8 of the European convention of human rights covers it

As I've said now 5 times you can't sign away your legal rights, just like you can't sign away your human rights, any contract would be seen as void in a court of law

[britishboy]

My Dad has hit me before... he still has parental rights over me. You can't sign away legal rights

Article 8 of the European convention of human rights covers it

did you press charges? a parent can file for full custody and should you be found by the police abusive your child they can take your parental rights away

why? show me the necessary section surely what I am suggesting is not in breech of human rights? the child will be cared for but with a single parent

[Harry Smith]

did you press charges? a parent can file for full custody and should you be found by the police abusive your child they can take your parental rights away

why? show me the necessary section surely what I am suggesting is not in breech of human rights? the child will be cared for but with a single parent

No of course I didn't, I just learnt not to punch him in the first place.

I'm saying that a woman signing away her parental rights for her whole life is a breach of the European convention article 8 which states

Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence" "necessary in a democratic society"

That means a contract robbing her of her motherly rights would be void, it's like I can sign a piece of paper and say I don't want any human rights that doesn't make it legal does it?

actually if you hit your children your rights are removed without your consent

So yeah that's complete BS as well, no law providing for that because my dad still has rights over me

[britishboy]

No of course I didn't, I just learnt not to punch him in the first place.

I'm saying that a woman signing away her parental rights for her whole life is a breach of the European convention article 8 which states



That means a contract robbing her of her motherly rights would be void, it's like I can sign a piece of paper and say I don't want any human rights that doesn't make it legal does it?



So yeah that's complete BS as well, no law providing for that because my dad still has rights over me

why would you punch you father in the first place? anyway my point was parental rights are takern and a daily bases

it's being respected, she is signing away her rights to the baby because she dosent want the baby, if forced without just cause it would be in breech


So yeah that's complete BS as well, no law providing for that because my dad still has rights over me
I see this is a sensitive issue, the authorities have bo clue what goes on behind closed doors but if caught the person doing it could lose the parental rights

[Harry Smith]

why would you punch you father in the first place? anyway my point was parental rights are takern and a daily bases

it's being respected, she is signing away her rights to the baby because she dosent want the baby, if forced without just cause it would be in breech

They're taken away by a judge not a woman signing a contract. Even if her rights get taken away she can use article 8 and would probably get them back unless the judge

She can't sign her rights away- they can only be removed within a court of law if child abuse has occurred otherwise there is no legal process to do so.

[Southside]

I didn't realise men could carry a baby.

I didn't realize women make babies by themselves.

If the father isn't a rapist, a deadbeat or relative who has committed incest, the father should have a say.

Though at the end of the day its mothers final decision, fathers should still have some type of say.

[Harry Smith]

The major problem with this is that women has to still have legal control over her own body, 100% control. She can discuss it with the man and this should be encouraged but otherwise I don't think that state should intervene by forcing a women a sign over her baby or something along the lines of Britishboys crazy fantasy.

The women has to carry it for 9 months, and deal with the emotional and physical attachments. It's her choice and her choice alone. The moment you give the father more power is the moment that women become in danger of losing their own.

[britishboy]

They're taken away by a judge not a woman signing a contract. Even if her rights get taken away she can use article 8 and would probably get them back unless the judge

She can't sign her rights away- they can only be removed within a court of law if child abuse has occurred otherwise there is no legal process to do so.

she signs them away, why would she fight it?

[Harry Smith]

she signs them away, why would she fight it?

Because as we've established she can't legally sign it away, not only is that illegal under international law but it's not possible. The contract would be void.

It's not possible to sign away your human rights- we both know that so stop pretending.

The issue is that you keep changing your viewpoint on this as well along with stating facts which simply are not true. It's nearly impossible to debate an issue if one side keeps making up claims which simply are not true. The logic of the whole issue is flawed because you state that it's 50% of the father yet you don't want rapists to have that 50% right, it's either all men or no men having full paternity rights- you can't limit it under law

Your whole idea is flawed because it completely marginalizes the women of her legal rights. Then you claimed that she could sign away her child- something that isn't possible. I'm not sure what your next plan will be

[sqishy]

Never thought about it before, need to get my opinion set on this.
My first impressions would be no. The man is not the person carrying the baby. But that could change.

[1_21Guns]

You can call it a cluster of cells all you want, but that doesn't mean it's not alive or a life. How about this:

Let's say the cluster of cells that you're talking about is a blob with the volume one cubic centimeter. A Mars rover is trucking along and come across one of those blobs. You better believe that every major news feature story that day will be something like, "Life on Mars!".

So people should at least be honest and thoughtful about what life is. A more extreme example is if the Mars rover came across a human fetus that was a few days short of the third trimester. In that case, the headline would read something like, "Human Fetus on Mars!" or "Mars Human Baby!".

Granted, my comment isn't about abortion, but you mentioned that it's not even life and I don't think that's the case.

I never said it wasn't a form of life, of course it is, a cluster of cells is alive but it's incapable of supporting itself or developing into anything at that stage in it's life, it hasn't developed the ability to feel anything so essentially I'm just calling it what it is.. a bunch of cells, because that's what it is..

[Sir Suomi]

To an extent, yes, the father should be able to at least have some say in the matter. Yet, although I still disapprove of the act, which I'm entitled to say that, it still, in the end, should be the women's choice. I suppose if I was forced to battle through pregnancy for 9 months, I would't be too happy about it either. But the father should have at least some say in the case, excluding rape, Harry.

[drew6]

I never said it wasn't a form of life, of course it is, a cluster of cells is alive but it's incapable of supporting itself or developing into anything at that stage in it's life, it hasn't developed the ability to feel anything so essentially I'm just calling it what it is.. a bunch of cells, because that's what it is..

Yup, it's a cluster of cells, just didn't know what you thought about it, so I commented.

[badthoughts]

I love the empowerment from both genders in these threads; it reminds me why I avoid them. I skimmed the first page and even though I lost interest, I was intrigued by this:

it's not a child, it's a cluster of cells with the capability to develop into a baby...essentially a parasite inside her womb feeding off her body.

Fair enough. I want to play devil's advocate here; with all the talk about men wanting the baby and it's the woman's choice to not carry it, what if the opposite were argued?

What if the man (let's just say it's me) doesn't want the nutrient-leeching parasite to develop into a money-grubbing kid, but the woman (let's just say it's 21Guns) does want that? Sure, I could abandon 21Guns and my child and simply let her to raise the kid, that sounds easy enough, but I'm not talking about merely being inconvenienced by a ball-and-chain and our devil spawn; I'm saying that I do not want a mutant being slithering out of her body at all.

Since we've already determined that there isn't a child inside of her, should I assume that there would be no qualms for abortion? Surely the idea of having inside of her a mass of rapidly multiplying cells (cancer anyone?) which has the ability to combine the DNA of its host and the DNA of another contributor and change them in order to make its own DNA is absolutely terrifying *shudders*, and there would be no objection to ridding herself of this hybrid horror.

What would possess my lovely worm depot that there is a logical reason for enduring the pains of parturition for nothing more than a freeloading bloodsucker? I want it out of you. Most of the crowd wants you to keep it, but I say flush that mooching membrane of cytoplasm out into the sewer where it belongs.

Who's with me on this?

[Harry Smith]

I love the empowerment from both genders in these threads; it reminds me why I avoid them. I skimmed the first page and even though I lost interest, I was intrigued by this:



Fair enough. I want to play devil's advocate here; with all the talk about men wanting the baby and it's the woman's choice to not carry it, what if the opposite were argued?

What if the man (let's just say it's me) doesn't want the nutrient-leeching parasite to develop into a money-grubbing kid, but the woman (let's just say it's 21Guns) does want that? Sure, I could abandon 21Guns and my child and simply let her to raise the kid, that sounds easy enough, but I'm not talking about merely being inconvenienced by a ball-and-chain and our devil spawn; I'm saying that I do not want a mutant being slithering out of her body at all.

Since we've already determined that there isn't a child inside of her, should I assume that there would be no qualms for abortion? Surely the idea of having inside of her a mass of rapidly multiplying cells (cancer anyone?) which has the ability to combine the DNA of its host and the DNA of another contributor and change them in order to make its own DNA is absolutely terrifying *shudders*, and there would be no objection to ridding herself of this hybrid horror.

What would possess my lovely worm depot that there is a logical reason for enduring the pains of parturition for nothing more than a freeloading bloodsucker? I want it out of you. Most of the crowd wants you to keep it, but I say flush that mooching membrane of cytoplasm out into the sewer where it belongs.

Who's with me on this?

Your argument hinges on the rather out dated argument that a child is a financial burden purely on the father, not every pregnant women is reliant the father's money. Women do have jobs you know.

The father has the ability to leave and not be involved in the upbringing, if your concerned about your child being born you should of used protection during sexual intercourse and been safe in the first place

[badthoughts]

Your argument hinges on the rather out dated argument that a child is a financial burden
My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that I do not want a parasitic creature to escape her womb alive.

if your concerned about your child being born
I'll let 21Guns answer this:
it's not a child...it's a parasite inside her womb feeding off her body.
I want it out.

[Harry Smith]

My argument is nothing of the sort. My argument is that I do not want a parasitic creature to escape her womb alive.


I'll let 21Guns answer this:

I want it out.

The maybe in this hypothetical situation you should of thought of that before you had sexual intercourse with a female. It's like someone on the titantic refusing to wear a life jacket and then complaining if they start to drown. If you don't want children use contraception and practice safe sex, or as an extreme us other forms of sexual activity which don't cause pregnancy.

[badthoughts]

edit

[teen.jpg]

If you want to be a dick and ditch your kid, have at it. But the birth is for the woman to have control over.

[kylem1229]

Females have more pain, so they should have the option. The male really doesnt have any pain..

[MrBlueSky]

I didn't realise men could carry a baby.

^This

I feel like in many cases where there is consideration for abortion, than man may be the one at fault. The man could leave the woman a single mom, but to still try to get her not abort, which would be something outside of his authority. I've even heard of a case where a rapist was trying to get his victim not to abort, which is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The women are generally the ones with the bulk of responsibility when caring for the baby, and should be the ones with most, if not all of the say in the decision.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

A man does not have to carry a baby for nine months and squeeze it through a vagina, or, on the other spectrum, go through the emotional trauma that comes from having something that you may or may not consider a living thing removed from inside of you. I can't imagine either of the two being forced on a woman. K bye.

[Joey.]

I think they should have a say..
Understandably if they wasn't together anymore
But.. it takes 2 to make a baby.
If they are on the same page then, fine.
It does mostly come down to the women's choice, it is her body.

[Mastretta]

http://media.tumblr.com/bf18ae37a2fdca3e703c56f8caf246b3/tumblr_inline_mvxxbihMwe1qe7idb.gif
Her body her decisions

[Horizon]

I personally feel like when it comes down to it, no. Only women should get a say in the abortion. they are the one that has to have another life living inside them for ninemonths. Causing them sickness, and to have their organs squished.

But I also feel it would be morally wrong, if the circumstances were it was just an unwanted child, for her to not confront the dad about it.
I wouldn't curse her for it, but it would be a tad fucked up I think.
But lets say
I don't need to explain my reasoning, because it is her body. She is the one 100% affected by the conception of the baby.

[Zenos]

I didn't realise men could carry a baby.

and with out men no babies can be made.it takes two to reproduce so yes men should have a say

[Cygnus]

A man can't carry a baby, so he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create or abort one.

[JAB555]

But remember that a woman can't make a baby without a man. Just like zenos said. But it depends on the situation whether men have a say in whether a woman gets an abortion or not.

[johndoe1112]

A man can't carry a baby, so he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create or abort one.

i think that if you are abusing a drug such as crack or heroin you should not be able to have a baby

[Laquifa]

A man can't carry a baby, so he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create or abort one.

YES. It's her body, it's her choice.

[Trace]

Uhm, no. It's not your uterus. You can try and persuade all you want, but no, you should not have some form of authority in that call. Men have enough say in stuff as is.

[Cygnus]

i think that if you are abusing a drug such as crack or heroin you should not be able to have a baby

Thats totally unrelated, we are talking about males getting or not getting abortion rights not if you should or should not have a baby if you aren't at the peak of your life.

[Zenos]

it is sad to see dna nazis in here and most of the people not habing thr morals to oppose them the problem with abortion is it causes people to dehumanize life so that children thst r still in the womb are treated as a non entity with no right to life.life is savrrd and on top of that boyh a msn and eoman contribute dna to thst life so the man shoulf have say in the decision making.abortion should be under strict control so that only if the mom life is at risk it can be done. people who got a case of the hot pants should be barred from getting an abortion that way they either learn resonibility ot adopt thr naby out

[thatcountrykid]

This is the argument that bringsout the feminist in every woman.

[Fanta_Lover44]

I think the circumstance that you described would be the only one in which men could get a say.

I agree, depending on what the circumstance is, there should be an equal decision...

[Seemyheart]

They have a say, yes. it takes two to create a baby anyways... so it takes two to figure out what to do. personally, im highly against abortion... but I think if the girl wants to keep it and the guy doesn't, she's entitled to make that decision for herself. if she doesnt want it but the guy does, then...there needs to be some serious soul searching.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I think that while the guy should obviously have a say, it shouldn't be binding legally or anything. Just as it takes two to tango it takes two to make a baby, and two lives get screwed up if you have it young.

[Yugen]

If she cannot afford a child, that is something she should discuss with her partner before they do anything.
Women are the ones dealing with the pregnancy directly. They're the ones allowing or not allowing the baby to, for lack of better words, "mooch" off their resources. If she does not consent to this then that is her choice, not her partners.