Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Well, I've yet to hear how a man can be raped and impregnated. Men don't get pregnant, they can't get abortions. If a man wants a child he should find a woman that wants one also... If he doesn't want a child he should use protection or keep it in his pants.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

People understand that. What's difficult to understand is why the same doesn't apply to females. If women don't want children, don't have sex with guys who aren't willing to armour-up.

Is that difficult to understand?

Male condoms: 98% effective if used correctly. Two women in 100 whose partners use a condom will get pregnant in a year.
Female condoms: 95% effective if used correctly. Five women in 100 who use a female condom will get pregnant in a year.
Diaphragms and caps with spermicide: latex caps are 92-96% effective if used correctly. Between four and eight women in 100 who use latex diaphragms and caps with spermicide will get pregnant in a year. Silicone caps are less effective.
Contraceptives available with a prescription

Combined contraceptive pill: over 99% effective if taken correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the combined pill.
Progestogen-only pill: 99% effective if taken correctly. One woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the progestogen-only pill.
Contraceptive injections: over 99% effective. They last for eight or 12 weeks, depending on the type of injection. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using contraceptive injections.
Contraceptive implants: over 99% effective. They work for three years but can be taken out earlier. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant over three years when using contraceptive implants.
Contraceptive patches: over 99% effective if used correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using contraceptive patches.
Intrauterine system (IUS): over 99% effective. An IUS normally works for five years but can be taken out earlier. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant over five years when using an IUS.
Intrauterine device (IUD): over 99% effective. An IUD can stay in place for five to 10 years, depending on the type but can be taken out at any time. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year, depending on the type of IUD. Older types of IUD are less effective.
Sterilisation (permanent contraception)

Female sterilisation: more than 99% effective. One in 200 women will become pregnant after being sterilised.
Male sterilisation or vasectomy: about one in 2,000 men can become fertile again after a vasectomy.
Natural family planning

Natural family planning can be up to 99% effective but the methods need to be followed precisely. It's more effective if more than one method is used and it's taught by specialist teachers.
Up to one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using natural family planning correctly. However, for some women, natural family planning is not suitable or it may be less effective. For more information, see What is natural family planning?
www.nhs.uk...

Please read...Babies happen even if the most stringent precautions are taken.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)

Of course. I never said protection was fool proof, did I? I don't even think I mentioned it.

What I said is that if men are irresponsible for not wearing protection, women are as equally irresponsible for opting to have sex with said men.

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Well, I've yet to hear how a man can be raped and impregnated. Men don't get pregnant, they can't get abortions. If a man wants a child he should find a woman that wants one also... If he doesn't want a child he should use protection or keep it in his pants.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

People understand that. What's difficult to understand is why the same doesn't apply to females. If women don't want children, don't have sex with guys who aren't willing to armour-up.

Is that difficult to understand?

Male condoms: 98% effective if used correctly. Two women in 100 whose partners use a condom will get pregnant in a year.
Female condoms: 95% effective if used correctly. Five women in 100 who use a female condom will get pregnant in a year.
Diaphragms and caps with spermicide: latex caps are 92-96% effective if used correctly. Between four and eight women in 100 who use latex diaphragms and caps with spermicide will get pregnant in a year. Silicone caps are less effective.
Contraceptives available with a prescription

Combined contraceptive pill: over 99% effective if taken correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the combined pill.
Progestogen-only pill: 99% effective if taken correctly. One woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the progestogen-only pill.
Contraceptive injections: over 99% effective. They last for eight or 12 weeks, depending on the type of injection. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using contraceptive injections.
Contraceptive implants: over 99% effective. They work for three years but can be taken out earlier. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant over three years when using contraceptive implants.
Contraceptive patches: over 99% effective if used correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using contraceptive patches.
Intrauterine system (IUS): over 99% effective. An IUS normally works for five years but can be taken out earlier. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant over five years when using an IUS.
Intrauterine device (IUD): over 99% effective. An IUD can stay in place for five to 10 years, depending on the type but can be taken out at any time. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year, depending on the type of IUD. Older types of IUD are less effective.
Sterilisation (permanent contraception)

Female sterilisation: more than 99% effective. One in 200 women will become pregnant after being sterilised.
Male sterilisation or vasectomy: about one in 2,000 men can become fertile again after a vasectomy.
Natural family planning

Natural family planning can be up to 99% effective but the methods need to be followed precisely. It's more effective if more than one method is used and it's taught by specialist teachers.
Up to one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using natural family planning correctly. However, for some women, natural family planning is not suitable or it may be less effective. For more information, see What is natural family planning?
www.nhs.uk...

Please read...Babies happen even if the most stringent precautions are taken.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)

Of course. I never said protection was fool proof, did I? I don't even think I mentioned it.

What I said is that if men are irresponsible for not wearing protection, women are as equally irresponsible for opting to have sex with said men.

What you said was

If women don't want children, don't have sex with guys who aren't willing to armour-up. Is that difficult to understand?

Originally posted by gandhi
He punched his girlfriend in the stomach.

He punched a baby, in the body.

That's illegal. I don't give a rats ass what his intentions were.

You have stated what I wanted to say....he not only harmed the young woman but the baby too....what he did was wrong and he should do jail time....

Now...lets say the woman in a couple is pregnant and she wants to abort the baby and
the father of the baby...wants the baby to live....and he wants to raise the baby...and the mother doesn't....I think the man should have legal rights in this case.....like the judge would rule that the female carry the baby the full length of the pregnancy and then legally give the baby to the father to be raised.

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Well, I've yet to hear how a man can be raped and impregnated. Men don't get pregnant, they can't get abortions. If a man wants a child he should find a woman that wants one also... If he doesn't want a child he should use protection or keep it in his pants.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand.

People understand that. What's difficult to understand is why the same doesn't apply to females. If women don't want children, don't have sex with guys who aren't willing to armour-up.

Is that difficult to understand?

Male condoms: 98% effective if used correctly. Two women in 100 whose partners use a condom will get pregnant in a year.
Female condoms: 95% effective if used correctly. Five women in 100 who use a female condom will get pregnant in a year.
Diaphragms and caps with spermicide: latex caps are 92-96% effective if used correctly. Between four and eight women in 100 who use latex diaphragms and caps with spermicide will get pregnant in a year. Silicone caps are less effective.
Contraceptives available with a prescription

Combined contraceptive pill: over 99% effective if taken correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the combined pill.
Progestogen-only pill: 99% effective if taken correctly. One woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year while taking the progestogen-only pill.
Contraceptive injections: over 99% effective. They last for eight or 12 weeks, depending on the type of injection. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using contraceptive injections.
Contraceptive implants: over 99% effective. They work for three years but can be taken out earlier. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant over three years when using contraceptive implants.
Contraceptive patches: over 99% effective if used correctly. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using contraceptive patches.
Intrauterine system (IUS): over 99% effective. An IUS normally works for five years but can be taken out earlier. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant over five years when using an IUS.
Intrauterine device (IUD): over 99% effective. An IUD can stay in place for five to 10 years, depending on the type but can be taken out at any time. Less than one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year, depending on the type of IUD. Older types of IUD are less effective.
Sterilisation (permanent contraception)

Female sterilisation: more than 99% effective. One in 200 women will become pregnant after being sterilised.
Male sterilisation or vasectomy: about one in 2,000 men can become fertile again after a vasectomy.
Natural family planning

Natural family planning can be up to 99% effective but the methods need to be followed precisely. It's more effective if more than one method is used and it's taught by specialist teachers.
Up to one woman in 100 will get pregnant in a year when using natural family planning correctly. However, for some women, natural family planning is not suitable or it may be less effective. For more information, see What is natural family planning?
www.nhs.uk...

Please read...Babies happen even if the most stringent precautions are taken.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)

Of course. I never said protection was fool proof, did I? I don't even think I mentioned it.

What I said is that if men are irresponsible for not wearing protection, women are as equally irresponsible for opting to have sex with said men.

What you said was

If women don't want children, don't have sex with guys who aren't willing to armour-up. Is that difficult to understand?

Within the context of the discussion I thought it was pretty clear that condoms can break and you can be candidate for pregnancy even with all the necessary precautions.

I presumed, and maybe I was wrong, that the people saying it's a mans fault or responsibility for not wearing protection were referencing men who purposely avoid contraception, and recklessly impregnate women. My argument, in response to that, is that women are too the guilty party, for consenting to sex without protection.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Wolvo

 

It's meant to confuse by taking two different topics and combing them into one... A: assault and battery vs B: the right for a man to have some say in whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or have the baby. The meshing of these two topics is for shock-value and is quite disgusting.

edit on 31-5-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

Not just two but three, this thread at times yet again steers dangerously into the *women just want to pop out kids to get mo money off the bebeh fadders* bilge and in all honesty I think thats exactly what the OP wanted from this thread all along unfortunately.

Originally posted by Abrihetx
If a man does not want to be a father then he should a.) use a condom or b.) abstain. It is up to HIM to take the necessary precautions to protect himself. . If he were being responsible then she wouldn't be pregnant. It goes both ways. No woman should be saying "he told me he was sterile". Personal responsibility is what it is all about.
If a guy doesn't use protection and a woman gets pregnant, then the decision is hers because the situation resides in her body at this point. ...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When you have free and open sex you are chancing becoming a parent. Men can't get pregnant therefore no law is required in this subject. Being both parties had consensual sex she becomes pregnant, at this exact moment in time that Childs life is solely decided by the female. It is her body just as this body is his. To decide he don't WA t this child is his issues,he should think with his brain, not Peter, Peter is a big stiff-necked trouble maker. Peace

There are legal and safe methods of having an abortion. Anything else is illegal for good reason.

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Wolvo

 

It's meant to confuse by taking two different topics and combing them into one... A: assault and battery vs B: the right for a man to have some say in whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or have the baby. The meshing of these two topics is for shock-value and is quite disgusting.

edit on 31-5-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

Not just two but three, this thread at times yet again steers dangerously into the *women just want to pop out kids to get mo money off the bebeh fadders* bilge and in all honesty I think thats exactly what the OP wanted from this thread all along unfortunately.

Is it surprising? Genuine concerns and arguments from the get-go have been dismissed as sexist and neanderthal like. Plenty of serious issues and viewpoints have been presented, the response has been overwhelmingly "blah blah blah, it's a woman's body, blah blah"

There's no room for seriousness or mature discussion because you believe your quasi-feminist "rights" are more important than the life of an unborn child. The real irony is nobody has suggested this man or any man has the right to beat up people carrying his baby, or terminate pregnancy in anyway. In contrast, plenty of people are trying to argue a woman has the right to do so - And worse still, this is being actively championed and celebrated.

I only see one side engaging in sexism and promoting hypocrisy. It's a shame you're unable to see the bigger picture.

Abortion is legal because it is done in a "controlled" environment. Punching a pregnant woman in the stomach and killing what was inside of the woman is illegal because it would actively encourage the brutalization of women alongside the killing of unborn babies.

If a man doesn't want to have the kid and the woman does why don't they just give up their parental rights?

They wouldn't be responsible for anything in that case, no child support, nothing. It would be like they didn't even exist. I know one person who did this where I live recently. He gave up his rights long before the kid was even born.

Abortion in the end no matter what you think of it is the choice of the woman, it is HER body and you can't force someone to do something to their body like abortion if they don't want to do it.

It's also simple, if you don't want to have kids use damn protection! Problem solved but no people are lazy and want to complain yet they forget that that moment of passion can lead to a child! If you don't want kids protect yourself.

Within the context of the discussion I thought it was pretty clear that condoms can break and you can be candidate for pregnancy even with all the necessary precautions.

I presumed, and maybe I was wrong, that the people saying it's a mans fault or responsibility for not wearing protection were referencing men who purposely avoid contraception, and recklessly impregnate women. My argument, in response to that, is that women are too the guilty party, for consenting to sex without protection.




This whole discussion is on the basis of a blog post which doesn't go into the why's and wherefores of what contraception was used if any. Indeed some posts I've seen here seem to suggest accident's do not happen, I would dare say a few people posting here today are the result of a happy little accident. Of course usually our parents would never inform us of such but here we are.

Too much finger pointing. People in glass houses etc.
I'm sure no one here has ever had relations under the influence of booze or been so utterly in love or besotted that they made a silly spur of the moment decision to throw caution to the wind.
There is no black and white, no uttery guilty or innocent - human beings do the silliest things sometimes, especially young girls in love.

I still hold the conclusion this thread is nothing more than a willful sturring of the battle of the sexes with huge spoon.

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Wolvo

 

It's meant to confuse by taking two different topics and combing them into one... A: assault and battery vs B: the right for a man to have some say in whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or have the baby. The meshing of these two topics is for shock-value and is quite disgusting.

edit on 31-5-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

Not just two but three, this thread at times yet again steers dangerously into the *women just want to pop out kids to get mo money off the bebeh fadders* bilge and in all honesty I think thats exactly what the OP wanted from this thread all along unfortunately.

Is it surprising? Genuine concerns and arguments from the get-go have been dismissed as sexist and neanderthal like. Plenty of serious issues and viewpoints have been presented, the response has been overwhelmingly "blah blah blah, it's a woman's body, blah blah"

There's no room for seriousness or mature discussion because you believe your quasi-feminist "rights" are more important than the life of an unborn child. The real irony is nobody has suggested this man or any man has the right to beat up people carrying his baby, or terminate pregnancy in anyway. In contrast, plenty of people are trying to argue a woman has the right to do so - And worse still, this is being actively championed and celebrated.

I only see one side engaging in sexism and promoting hypocrisy. It's a shame you're unable to see the bigger picture.

Genuine concerns and arguments like this I suppose.

Maybe he did take precautions. I know a guy who's girlfriend was dumping his used condoms into herself. That's an extreme example of course. But how many times do women lie when they say they are on the pill?

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
This is a reasonable question. If infanticide(feticide if you prefer) is legal and acceptable for 1 parent why not the other? What happened to equal protection under the law?

True. And if we can kill a baby, why not a toddler? Say the mother decides after 5 years she really wants to rethink this decision, and since the child is effecting her financially, physically, emotionally, mentally etc .. shouldn't the mother have every right to abort the child raising process up to 18 years old?

Seems logical to me.

Gives whole new meaning to the threat "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of this world"

S & F

I discuss this topic SO MUCH as it makes for a very controversial debate.

The OP is not saying that abortion ( the physical act of removing a fetus or embryo from a man) is possible. The focus is that currently, men do not have the right to opt out of fatherhood, as women do. And as a woman, even a single mother of 3, I have to agree that they should; fair is fair.

Women are able to 'opt out' of motherhood at any given time without being called trifling or dead beat. We can

a. have an abortion
b. put a child up for adoption

What can men do? Nothing. They are expected to accept fatherhood, regardless if they planned the pregnancy or not.

I honestly believe that if legislation passed where men had this option, women would not carelessly have children by 'deadbeat' men. Let's be honest, ladies. WE are the one who can pregnant so WE should DEFINATELY make sure it doesn't happen.

This would end the entire Child Support department, which would keep tax dollars in our pockets, create new opportunities for those employees to be productive elsewhere, and MOST IMPORTANTLY force women to be more responsible.

At the discovery of pregnancy, if men had this option, he would be able to tell the woman that he is not interested in being a father. Then she has the option to have an abortion if she feels that she will not be able to adequately take care of the child alone or without state assistance of have the child, accepting full responsibility.

That may sound cruel, especially to single mothers, but I am one myself. I just know how to step outside the situation and look at it for what it is. Fair is fair.

This is pretty simple.

BECAUSE MEN DON'T OWN ANOTHER HUMAN'S UTERUS.

How this is less than clear to so many people only goes to show you how many guys secretly really believe that they own the women they screw. Inside and out.

There are so many aspects to this thread but first going back to the reported incident, those were really two kids, a 20 year old is still a kid. I think most parents will agree with that, the lass is only 17, what a ghastly thing for both of them to face. How many of us would want our son's and daughters in the same position - regardless of the action the lad took?

This lad's reaction was kidnap and a truly horrific act of violence, we don't know much about his history but his actions suggest extreme problems. But are they compounded because he had a college career upcoming or he knows he won't get a job so won't cope, or blind fury at the thought of entrapment? I do wonder, despite all the different solutions available for avoiding pregnancy, whether we need more of a combined effort from parents and family, school, GP's and where applicable the Church to drum into our kids heads the true responsibility of becoming a parent.

With regard to men's and women's right, I do think this is a terribly complex situation. There are men about who love the idea of proving to their peers and the world in general tha, t 'I have one that works, - I don't fire blanks'. A lot of these men love the idea of proving they can produce but go on to make unreliable husbands if they marry or simply disappear once they discover a child's noise blocks out the footy on the tv and just how sacrificial the role of parenthood actually is. (I know its not all men - but they exist) I will touch on the women later.

You will always be in difficulty with ruling on abortion. I doubt many will remember the horrific deaths of women before abortion became legal. We can't afford to go back to that kind of suffering. It was often reported in the papers as blood poisoning but the deaths were truly terrible. Many women were also so badly damaged they could never have children at a later stage. The price of abortion IMHO was paid by those forgotten women years ago. Another reason
is that were the law changed women would still get abortions but they would either never tell the man involved in the first place, go to a country where it was legal or in desperation a backstreet abortionist would make a comeback. Were a law possible, there are always surgeons who would do abortions regardless of the law and put it down as a danger to the woman's health and there is patient confidentiality etc. Regardless of some people having deep feelings on this I believe it should still be left in the Woman's hands becaue ultimately she will be looking after the child. Some men make fantastic stay at home Dads but not all of them could be trusted not to murder little Johnny after hours of crying and being utterly exhausted. One only has to watch some of the morning/daytime tv shows to realise the state of play today.

I have a vested interest in this from the perspective of my son having an on - off girlfriend, more off than on, who told him she was on the pill. We live nearly 80 miles away from his ex and every weekend he and occasionally I also drive down to fetch his dear little girl who is 8 months old. He knew they would never make it as a couple having already lived together, but we struggle on and he is on the birth certificate. He pays her cash and buys her clothes, equipmen, food etc etc and I buy things for her, the diesel bill is horrific not to say how tired he gets. The Mother now, has been allotted a Local Authority House and moves in soon. She appears to be basically set up for life which at least gives the little one a home. He did ask her to terminate because of their relationship, she refused and here we are. I agreed with my Son's request because I look further down the line to the future and to a fraught situation becoming hell if and when both meet new partners. I don't criticise her in any way because although they will probably never manage to get along I understand and love her. I suppose really humanity has struggled along and always will do despite our laws.

I feel sorry for the little one if the 17 year old girl keeps her and the child finds out his or her roots.

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Wolvo

 

It's meant to confuse by taking two different topics and combing them into one... A: assault and battery vs B: the right for a man to have some say in whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or have the baby. The meshing of these two topics is for shock-value and is quite disgusting.

edit on 31-5-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

Not just two but three, this thread at times yet again steers dangerously into the *women just want to pop out kids to get mo money off the bebeh fadders* bilge and in all honesty I think thats exactly what the OP wanted from this thread all along unfortunately.

Is it surprising? Genuine concerns and arguments from the get-go have been dismissed as sexist and neanderthal like. Plenty of serious issues and viewpoints have been presented, the response has been overwhelmingly "blah blah blah, it's a woman's body, blah blah"

There's no room for seriousness or mature discussion because you believe your quasi-feminist "rights" are more important than the life of an unborn child. The real irony is nobody has suggested this man or any man has the right to beat up people carrying his baby, or terminate pregnancy in anyway. In contrast, plenty of people are trying to argue a woman has the right to do so - And worse still, this is being actively championed and celebrated.

I only see one side engaging in sexism and promoting hypocrisy. It's a shame you're unable to see the bigger picture.

Genuine concerns and arguments like this I suppose.

Maybe he did take precautions. I know a guy who's girlfriend was dumping his used condoms into herself. That's an extreme example of course. But how many times do women lie when they say they are on the pill?

But it's a small example. There's plenty of people who do have genuine, non-sexist arguments; Real concerns and moral difficulties with abortion on the whole. But if you express these views, or suggest women are responsible for being pregnant(in response to the suggestion men should be more responsible), you're shot down.

The bottom line is that abortion should be a last resort for a) When conception fails, and b) Rape. There is no need for abortion outside of these 2 scenarios, but yet overwhelmingly abortion exists and is prevalent because of irresponsibility. And I hate to say it but, the "woman's body, woman's right" rhetoric only enables abortion and encourages young women to be reckless and get themselves into situations where a fetus must be aborted. And of course nobody supports abortion in that way, directly or consciously - But indirectly? It's the unfortunate truth.

Men are responsible too, but so long as people are putting all the responsibility on men - Something we've seen throughout the thread - we won't come close to fixing or even addressing the issue. Young women are being brought up in a society that tells them if they get pregnant, the man is at fault. There is no self responsibility amongst young females. And yes it takes two to tango, and men are irresponsible too, but they're not 'burdened' with the ability to give birth. Females have a greater responsibility, but most seem unwilling to take on or accept it. When I say this I don't think there's anything sexist, inherently or otherwise, about it. It's massively unfair, but it's a biological issue, not a sociological one.

I don't think many people are against women's rights or equality, both are a staple of an advanced and fair society. BUT so are ethics and self-responsibility. And to expect people to ignore basic morality because an issue or act is safe guarded or perceived to be a matter of feminism or sexual equality? You can't expect that. And It's unfair to tar people who do have issues with claims of sexism, implied or stated.

Those are my views, but they're not acceptable; Too many immature and irresponsible people on both sides want to play hot-potato with the issue.

reply to post by CobraCommander


Don't give up dude. I'm actaully surprised about how much opposition you are receiving. Its a fairly simple concept. No one is suggesting that what the guy in the article from the OP did was correct. What I think you're suggesting is that because women have the sole legal right to choose abortion, this is unbalanced. If the father cannot decide whether or not he wants to be a father, but the mother has the right to choose if she wants to be a mother. How is that equal treatment under the law? As I once said to an ex-girlfriend (hahaha just waiting for the "I wonder whys" after this post), "You get chivalry or equality, not both babe"