Active Now

.
Element 99
Malizz
Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Human Behavior » MEN AND ABORTION.............

MEN AND ABORTION.............

I've posted this question on other sites and get no really decent replies, just smartass remarks....

abortion.......a horrible thing, we all agree.

takes TWO to tango, as they say.....

SOOOOOOO


WHY is it that you ladies have to put up with all the crap??

you can use the Pill,,,,,wear an IUD...or, have an abortion.

so where are the men in this?

why don't MEN get involved by........using a condom
.....................................................getting a vasectomy
.......................................................keeping their pants on


is that such a hard decision to make?

NO ONE wants to discuss this...........surely it's not a hard question to get thoughts/opinions on, is it????????

so please share your thoughts on this with me.....

and NO SMARTASS REPLIES....

on another forum, one guy said........" I wouldn't want to be the one to tell the tattoo artist not to give someone a tattoo".

now what the  HELL was that supposed to mean!?!?!

So I'm relying on the intelligence of you members to help me with this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:-D



Posted - April 22, 2017

Responses


  • 19942
    Women shouldn't have to rely solely on themselves for birth control and, yes, men should take some responsibility as well.  However, science had not yet come up with a temporary form of birth control for men comparable to the pill or an IUD.  Condoms are not foolproof and vasectomies should be considered permanent although in some cases, they have been reversed.  Perhaps men don't want to employ these solutions because somewhere, deep in their evoluntionary DNA, they see themselves as the ones who are destined to propagate the world.  Is it fair?  No, it isn't.  However, as a woman, I would rather rely on my own birth control method to prevent pregnancy and know I've taken care of it. 
      April 22, 2017 9:19 AM MDT
    4

  • 7280
    Well, physically it's obviously true that if there is a child produced, the woman will be the first and potentially the only one to know.

    Fortunately, having a child out of wedlock no longer has to be the incredibly shaming experience for the woman that it once was.

    Considerations of morality aside, condoms are effective (but not 100%---and they can break).  Reanastamosis after a vasectomy is uncommon, but can occur (and the proof is only in the pudding.)

    In general, sexual intercourse is less than satisfying if the hearts and minds and bodies of the two participants do not reach out to one another at the time.  Once you experience that, promiscuity becomes less appealing as a life style---and keeping one's pants on becomes the default.
    (However, be prepared for the eventual question:  "Why wouldn't you go to bed with me?")

    I was single from 27 to 35.  I was not a Warren Beatty or a Wilt Chamberlain; but neither was I sexually inactive.  I would never have approved of an abortion as a solution.  While technically it is a form of birth control (retroactively), I do consider it murder; but I would not judge a woman who sees it as the only option.

    (Fortunately, at my age, I was able to act responsibly if necessary.)

    Late edit:   acting responsibly involves two issues---prevention of pregnancy and dealing with an unexpected one. This post was edited by tom jackson at April 22, 2017 3:45 PM MDT
      April 22, 2017 9:29 AM MDT
    3

  • 19942
    I believe in a woman's right to choose what she believes is best for her should there be an unwanted pregnancy.  Having said that, I don't believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control.  When you say "act responsibly," do you mean in making sure that you used some form of birth control or that the woman did or do you mean that if the woman became pregnant and kept the baby, you would either marry her or take care of the child financially?  I'm not a fan of shotgun weddings unless both parties would have married at some point anyway. 
      April 22, 2017 9:41 AM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    I'm 35-40 years older now, so I'm not sure of the current legal realities for such a situation.  Marriage has certain administrative benefits; and while I believe in the permanence of marriage, I can see where a "temporary" legal arrangement might be useful.

    But yes, all remedies except for abortion would be on the table.

    As for whether or not the use of birth control was necessary on my part, I tended to rely on the woman's preference since the pill was so routinely taken.   (And in retrospect, that may well have been naive on my part.)
      April 22, 2017 10:25 AM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    Basically, you and I are in the same age group.  Unless I'm misreading you, you're pretty much saying that if the gal became pregnant and wanted the child, you would marry her, even if you didn't love her.  To me, the thought of being married to someone simply for appearance sake, would not be something I would want.  However, if the man wanted to financially help with caring for the child, that would be acceptable. 

    Back then, the pill was the greatest invention imaginable.  Not 100% effective, but more so than any other form.  Today, there's the morning after pill and other forms of birth control so it doesn't have to happen if you're careful. 
      April 22, 2017 10:38 AM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    No, I'm saying that if having one's parents in a specific legal relationship at the time of the birth may prevent the child from the designation of bastard by an "accident of birth" or cause other unwanted consequences, I would be open to preventing that from occurring.  (He may of course choose to become a bastard later in life if he so desires.)

    The morning after pill is an abortifacient and in the same category as what we currently understand with the term "abortion;" and while I agree that it seems less heinous, it is equally abhorrent to me philosophically.
      April 22, 2017 10:58 AM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    I don't think in this day and age the connotation of one being born out of wedlock is as disastrous as it might have been back in the day, but I see what you mean. 

    Yes, the morning after pill could be construed as a form of abortion and I understand why you would be opposed to it, but it is an option. 

    What I find more abhorrent is a woman who bears the child and then spends most of its life abusing it or causing its death or allows it to be abused or killed by boyfriend.  This is something I could never understand.  Here in NYC, you can leave that child at a church, at a fire house or a police station or a hospital and not be brought up on charges. 
      April 22, 2017 11:11 AM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    Yes, and essentially I would have been interested in providing the equivalent of that now established and accepted "drop off" option which was essentially not available 40 years ago without some work by the persons who most needed such an option.

    You also mention what I consider to be a valid criticism of the inadequacy of the right to life movement which has been made relatively recently----To wit, it is not so much as a right to life movement as a right to birth; and after that you are pretty much on your own.

    Much work does still needs to be done.
      April 22, 2017 11:22 AM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    The drop off option is relatively recent, yet far too many still prefer to throw the baby in the trash or some other heinous act. 

    The key to this is education.  Teaching children the value of life, that with sexual activity there may be consequences and teaching them their options should that occur.  Most important, teach your children their own value, that they are worth something, and fewer young women will be out looking for that validation by sleeping with anyone who will treat them well, even if it's only for a short time. 
      April 22, 2017 11:30 AM MDT
    0

  • 3463
    When I was sexually active, I was the only one who took precautions. Not only from getting pregnant, but from any nasty critters that might be floating around out there.
    My motto was, no glove, no love.
    And when my son became active, the first thing I did was give him a box of rubbers and told him never have sex without them.
    Most men don't think about the negative things when it comes to sex, they are just looking for a good time and figure that it's not their problem if something happens.
      April 22, 2017 9:55 AM MDT
    4

  • 52936
    Does your last line also mean that most women DO think about the negatives that can be associated with having sex?
    -
      April 22, 2017 10:18 AM MDT
    0

  • 1128
    Having six brothers who had long talks with me about sex and pregnancy, I really do believe most males don't think about consequences. I know 'some' females who didn't think (for whatever reason) either, but I've found out from my experience with male relatives and friends you are right. Most (not all) men don't worry or think because the reality is some males never grew up to become MEN. I'm not man-bashing here because I love men. just sharing my experience with you. <3
      April 22, 2017 11:08 AM MDT
    1

  • 3463
    That has been my experience too. But of course both male and female need to be more responsible.
      April 22, 2017 11:19 AM MDT
    1

  • 1128
    Exactly LM. WE also taught my son to be responsible, just the same as we taught our daughters to be responsible for their own actions..  
      April 22, 2017 11:23 AM MDT
    1

  • 32661
    It is simple.
    The woman should always make sure she is protected as she will be the one who carries the baby. 

    The man should not leave it up to just the woman. He should take appropriate protection for himself...Too many woman looking to trap a man with a kid. 
    Then there is always disease to protect yourself from as well.
      April 22, 2017 9:56 AM MDT
    1

  • 10042
    I honestly don't understand why anyone, male or female, wouldn't worry at least as much about contracting a STD as they would conceiving a child. I read something recently that suggested that HALF the population is or has been infected with HPV. Birth control pills, IUDs, vasectomies offer zero protection from disease. WRAP IT UP!!

    In my opinion, both parties should take responsibility for their own health and all the possible consequences of unprotected sex.
      April 22, 2017 10:01 AM MDT
    3

  • 52936
    I just wish your abuse of punctuation could be aborted. (Obviously I'm not intelligent enough to answer this appropriately.)

    :[
      April 22, 2017 10:20 AM MDT
    1

  • 3191
    I think if you do not wish to become a parent at any given time, you need to take it upon yourself to try and prevent a pregnancy should you decide to have sex...and you should have already thought out your options and desires should that birth control fail.  That applies equally to men and women.  

    Ideally, any options should birth control measures fail would be discussed in advance and agreement come to as to what would happen next.  We do not live in the ideal, though, and most have sex with people before such discussions take place.  

    If a pregnancy does occur, whether precautions are taken or not, that is the point that equality goes out the window.  That is simply the way it is.  The woman is the first, and possibly only, one aware of the pregnancy, and could have an abortion without even telling the father...who may have wished to keep the child, even if it meant raising the child himself.  Or she could decide to have the child, despite his wish to terminate the pregnancy, and he is then on the hook for child support.  

    Bottom line, regardless of one's belief about abortion, is that everyone must take responsibility for their own actions.  That includes recognizing that no birth control method is infallible, and planning for the possibility that it may fail.  

    As always...JMHO
      April 22, 2017 12:04 PM MDT
    2

  • 16240
    I had a vasectomy, 23 years ago. Some men DO take responsibilty.
      April 22, 2017 7:42 PM MDT
    0