Men's choice in pregnancy/parenthood.

24 Comments

I can't speak for all the countries in the world here but to most that I know of this rule apply: A man and a woman have sex for different reasons. She gets pregnant due to no protection or failed protection and she wishes to keep the baby.

The man is left with absolutely NO choice in this situation and may be forced to be a parent, or at least pay for it during many years.

Just as I believe that It's a woman's choice to keep or abort a baby I believe that It should be a man's choice if he wishes to be a father or not.

An argument that I have heard about the subject is: If you are having sex you should be able to take the responsibility. But this somehow only applies to the men out there whilst women should have the RIGHT to make the choice afterwards since it's her body.

What do you think?

A man should be able to decide too. 35
He should pay for the baby if he had sex with her! 16
Other (Comment) 5
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 24 )
  • laxman209
    10 years ago | pl

    Simple. Protection equals no child. No Protection equals a child. Some people seems to forget the basics of sexual encounters. If you don't want a child, put some rubber on your fucking cock.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    6
    6
      -
    • RoseIsabella
      10 years ago

      Precisely, accountability and personal responsibility are key!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
  • Short4Words
    10 years ago

    No one is forced but you are under some moral obligation I believe to help this child.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • (s)aint
      10 years ago

      At least financial aid to the mother, which I believe to be complete bullshit.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
  • driedroses
    10 years ago

    I think that a man should be able to have a say in whether the woman keeps the baby or not. So, if he wants it aborted, she should take his opinion into consideration. If he wants to keep it, she should take his opinion into consideration. Although, in the end, it is her body and men need to be smart and know what they're getting themselves into.

    Just like STD's, pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex that you should keep in mind before you hook up with people who may or may not respect your wishes. People are assholes, so be safe... and beware.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • Tommythecat.
    10 years ago

    Both should have a say in things, but I can't say I agree with abortion in the first place these days.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • dom180
    10 years ago

    I find that idea that anyone could force a woman to have an abortion sickening. That's no option at all to me. "It's her body" is no insignificant afterthought.

    The other option is the father choosing not to pay child support. "Financial abortion", as one frequent OP of this topic has called it. With that option, the child will grow up significantly disadvantaged if the father chooses it. The father having to pay child support is clearly by far the lesser evil.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      10 years ago

      Children are already raised disadvantaged due to fatherlessness, and nothing will change except this financial abortion.

      The child is not forced in to life in this condition. The father makes his choice, and if the mother is not capable of raising the child properly and sees it as a problem, she has full choice to stop that from happening by having an abortion or putting the child up for adoption.

      To this I assume your response would be that it is forcing women to have an abortion, but it's not. She has the right to choose an abortion or be a single parent. The responsibility of the woman's life is not the man's. His right to choose just like the woman can should not be limited simply because the woman will have a hard time by her choice. Thinking that that would be wrong to put your own wants on the side for the woman's would be quite hypocritical considering how we do the exact same with men, such as because the woman wants a child, the man must be forced to pay child support for the child he doesn't want.

      This way, it's equalled out. The man's choice should not be limited simply because the woman does not favor it, just like the woman's choice should not be limited for the man's wants.

      So, to the disadvantaged part, I have to say, if the child is brought in to this world while the man claimed financial abortion, then it was entirely the woman's fault, as she knew the child would be disadvantaged and still choose to have a child.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • dom180
        10 years ago

        So just because a child has a disadvantage we should be okay with heaping more disadvantage onto them? That sounds like the wrong way around to me; those children should be spared further hardship precisely because they already have more than their fair share of it.

        In answer to your second paragraph: I think it would be more unfair to require a future mother to make the choice between abortion, putting her child up for adoption and raising the child inadequately than it would be to require the father to make the choice between paying child support and not. And as a new point: abortion and institutionalisation of children are social ills in themselves since they cause great emotional trauma, so even if the mother chooses that option it's not a good outcome for society. A father paying a fair share for the up-bringing of the child that is biologically his is not a social ill. The only way to avoid a great social ill is if the father pays child support if he can afford it.

        "So, to the disadvantaged part, I have to say, if the child is brought in to this world while the man claimed financial abortion, then it was entirely the woman's fault, as she knew the child would be disadvantaged and still choose to have a child."

        The fault is only the woman's if the law (and our socially constructed morals) biases to say it is so, and the fault is only the man's if the law (and our socially constructed morals) biases to say it is so. The status quo is that in the eyes of the law (and our socially constructed morals) no one party bears the "fault"; the single parent must deal with the social stigma, extreme stress and financial drain of bringing up a child alone, and the distant parent must contribute to this financial drain and face a little social stigma themselves. Nothing about that seems unfair to me when we consider that the alternative is a much greater social ill.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        2
        2
          -
        • [Old Memory]
          10 years ago

          The first paragraph I am not addressing, as I already explained that any disadvantages from this would only happen if the woman decided to have the child while knowing it would be the issue.

          That is your opinion. If you see being given multiple choices that do not cripple your capability of having a family later with someone willing as more stressful than being forced to pay for something you had to choice in, crippling your life due to the choice someone else made for you, also making it hard for you to actually start a family when you are ready because you are paying for someone elses choice, then...Well, I am speechless.

          Again, we come back to it. "Man should not get reproductive rights because it may harm the woman's feelings". Mens rights shouldn't end where woman's feelings begin. If that is an emotional trauma, then it is their trauma. They can have the child and put it forward for adoption or keep the child themselves, so they are not limited to one choice.

          If the man accepts being the father and then is absent, then he should pay child support. If he chooses financial abortion, then he relinquishes all responsibility (just like the woman), and so it becomes the woman's choice to bring that child in to the world or not, so she is responsible for that child if she wants to bring the child into the world and keep it. If she is against abortion, then that is "her" belief, and in no way should the man be made to live by the choices of "her" beliefs. That would be like saying a woman with a man against abortion due to his beliefs has no right to have an abortion. I already explained this.

          Yes, that is the law, I am not saying it isn't, I'm saying it's not fair, and it isn't, and it should be changed.
          I seem to keep having to say the same thing over again.
          If the single parent has to deal with that, then that is a result of her choice. Like said, she has full choice over it, and men's rights should not end where woman's feels begin.

          If she does not want to raise a single child, does not want to face the stigma, and so on, then abort the child (like people do) and find someone willing to be a father. A man should not be forced to pay or support a child if he doesn't want to, just like a womans should not be forced to bring one in to the world if she doesn't want to.

          I have to say this again. Men's rights shouldn't end where women's feels begin. Simple as that. Men's rights are about helping men and giving them equal choice, not about making sure women feel good at the expense of male rights.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
  • [Old Memory]
    10 years ago

    The thing you are looking for is financial abortion, which I agree with 100%.

    There should be a system where the man gets to make a choice on if he will be the father or not at a time where the woman can have an abortion, that way she can make her decision whilst knowing if the man will be playing a role or not.
    This way the man gets his choice fully, all while the woman is not forced with any unknown future problems.

    But yes, the man should get the right to choose, just as the woman. Too many men suffer in life because of the lack of reproductive rights.

    You could then say "But what of the child?", well at this stage where the man makes the decision, the child is not born, the choice is 100% the woman's, so the "what of the child" point is not usable, because if having one parent is a problem to the mother, then she has the choice to not bring a child in to the world fatherless.

    To make it short, no matter what the mother would go through, it is no longer the man's responsibility, as she is given the information on if she will be alone in raising a child, and with that information can choose to not have such a life and not have the child.

    I don't think men should have a right over the woman's body, however. Men should have a right to choose their lives, but that doesn't mean a right to choose over the woman's body, just like the woman has right over her body but should not have right over the man's life.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Shackleford96
      10 years ago

      If it were possible to have financial abortion, what would stop people from abusing this consequentless privilege? I definitely agree that men should have reproductive rights too, but it just seems like some people would use it just to dump any sort of responsibility about the matter. I definitely agree that parenthood shouldn't be forced on a man, but being able to negate responsibility so easily seems like it would be a bit unbalanced. Of course things are already unbalanced as it is anyway...

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      4
      4
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        10 years ago

        It would be done at a time where the woman is still able to have an abortion, and so she can relinquish responsibility aswell.

        I don't think it would be unbalanced at all, it works perfectly. The man says if he is going to be the father at an early stage of the pregnancy, then the mother can make her choice after knowing the father's.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Shackleford96
          10 years ago

          That doesn't seem fair to me though. It seems like with this idea, we're essentially forcing the woman to etither:

          A. Be a single mother.
          B. Get an abortion.

          Neither of those options is very good in my opinion. The only way I could really see this idea possibly working is if the financial abortion contract had to be signed before a couple starts having sex/ before the woman gets pregnant (like a marital pre-nump or something). That way, both parties involved know beforehand and there is no uncertainty about the matter.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            10 years ago

            No.

            A. Be a single mother.
            B. Get an abortion.
            C. Have the child and have it put forward for adoption.

            Even then, it is not fair to force a man, or anyone, in to something that will last eighteen years simply because it is hard for the mother to make their decision. It's not right that men's fair and deserved rights should end where woman's feels begin. That is not fair.

            As for the last bit, yes, that was one option I considered alongside my initial one (this issue has come up before on here).

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Shackleford96
              10 years ago

              I hadn't considered the adoption option.

              You're right, that is not fair either. Life's often not fair.

              Maybe even have the option of abortion agreements or something where (if the man knows beforehand that he doesn't want the responsibility of being a father) the woman signs an agreement to get an abortion if she happens to get pregnant while they are together.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • Psoriano
    10 years ago

    It would be so easy: all men would "decide" not to pay up.

    Abstinence is the only way to go about it that's truly safe. If you wish to take your chances, then face the consequences. A hundred years ago they had no contraception so they didn't have this choice, they simply had to go with abstinence and somehow they managed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Kiddles9
    10 years ago

    I agree that the father should have a say. But I think that if the father wants to keep the baby then custody can go to the father and the mother will pay child support and vise versa. Because to me it isn't right that only the mother gets to choose whether the baby lives or dies when it's both the mother and child who made it.
    Simply put if at least one parent wants the child, the child should be given to that child. If neither want the child you can then consider adoption or I guess abortion if need be.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • otakuneko
    10 years ago

    Lol no no its both together in this situation he KNOWS what will happen if I put my thing in her without a condom she knows as well if ur whining don't have sex lol

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Riddler
    10 years ago

    Well you are saying we should force the women to have an abortion since the man said no. If the chick wants the baby and the man says no I would say "LET HER HAVE HER KID"! The dad choice to have sex with that woman. So forcing an abortion on an unwilling mother is cruel and irresponsible. You are really going to stand behind FORCED ABORTION.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • ucipher8
    10 years ago

    Ultimately i believe it shouldn't be "their" choice. The simple argument is that the woman carries the child and not the man. More so, should she choose to keep the child; you have to think. Maybe put yourself into her shoes.

    "I don't want to abort my first child"

    "I cant abort my third"

    "I don't want to have a child with the genes of a rapist/molester/etc"

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Indemand
    10 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYvLahRzabs

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0