In what is unfortunately being called a ‘male abortion’, conversations are happening about whether men should have the right to decline paternity for an unplanned pregnancy during the same period of time in which the woman could legally have an abortion.
Sweden is currently considering such an initiative, which has opened the conversation in other countries.
In an article in Ozy.com entitled Should Fathers Have the Right to Abort?, journalist Tracy Moran qouted DadsRights.org founder Anne Mitchell, attorney at law, extensively.
Says Mitchell, in the article, “Women have all the power to determine whether or not a man will end up supporting a child that they never planned, and may well have been told couldn’t happen.
DadsRights.org is always free, always reader-supported. Your support via CashApp, Venmo, or Paypal is appreciated. Receipts will come from ISIPP.
You can read the full article here.
So, what do you think of this idea? Let us know in a comment!
According to the article, “[r]oughly half of all American pregnancies each year are unplanned”, and “[c]onventional liberal thinking has it that it’s the woman’s choice whether or not to have the baby.
Note: Some links on this site are partner links and earn us a small commission. But it's really tiny. Seriously. Like less than $7 a month.
7 thoughts on “Should Men be Able to Decline Paternity During Same Period that Women Can Get an Abortion?”
This is sad, and what’s wrong with our country today. People want all the fun without the responsibility. You do the crime, you do the time. Be a man, say I did it, and I’ll help pay for it.
It’s the f’n you get for the f’n you did.
Maybe we should quit raising a bunch of irresponsible boys and start raising men to be MEN.
It would be fitting, in the interest of true equality, to allow a male to sign rights terminations but there are so many loopholes it’s ridiculous. It would have to be so long from discovery, not from conception due to the situations of females hiding it or just not knowing…& there are fathers who agree and after a fight or breakup, try to deny. To be honest, I believe the most blatantly common sense part of the entire discussion, that everyone tends to overlook, is that removing abortion (barring extreme cases) and highly marketing preventatives, including emergency, is not about taking away a woman’s rights. In most cases, she practiced her rights when choosing to have sex…same as the male that doesn’t responsibly use condoms. If an accident happens with protection, it should be his right to sign a waiver requesting emergency contraception or denial of any future paternity suit. Why not allow females to be fixed, without previously having children, and make reversal require a 5k child fund to be set up? If you can afford the fund, you can afford the child…and funds are returned upon conception. There are options. Ad a female, I understand that having anyone try to rule over my body without my permission is wrong…but what about the child? Aren’t you selfishly doing the same thing to the child after there’s a heartbeat and nervous system…when it can feel…? And what about a man’s rights? Saying that you believe it’s ok to kill a child for your rights…but if you decide not to, the man should just pay? No rights?
As** a female…my phone likes to correct me…
Called it years ago.
For some years now, I’ve challenged others with “The Man’s Right to Decide.” In this, I suggest that men, within the first three months (trimester) of discovering they’ve created a child, may pay a nominal fee and sever all social, financial and legal ties with and obligations to said child without the knowledge or consent of the female involved in the child’s creation. This is provoked by two feminist axioms: “My body, my choice!” and “Equal rights!” It’s based on the “Woman’s Right to Choose” dogma, which states that no woman should be permanently burdened with an unwanted child and the social, financial, and legal burdens which accompany that life-altering event. It’s exactly the same as “pro-choice”, but without terminating the fetus.
A few years ago I proposed this in a poli-sci class, after one of the flaming pro-choicers whined, “Why are the men so quiet?” This blithely disregarded the poisonous environment of college campii, in which all males are told they have no right to speak on the issue, since we have no involvement in a pregnancy. Yes, there are a dozen responses to that, but we’re dealing with feminist ideology here. When I suggested my “Right to Decide” plan, I expected to be praised for supporting feminist views. Instead, the pro-choice crowd turned into a pack of wolves, howling for my blood. They shrieked that such a policy would only encourage men to sleep around, commit unspeakably trashy acts and take no responsibility for their actions—oddly these were the same arguments against Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s. Helpfully, a male classmate explained that he drove a friend to an abortion and the cost was a nominal $200. Eventually the prof had to shut the conversation down because I wouldn’t back down on what I believed (and still do) is a viable answer to the demand for “choice” and “equal rights” from women. So it’s interesting to see how “choice” is an inalienable human right, but becomes an unspeakable wrong the moment the other party wants their human rights as well.
Isn’t it about time the gender-equality brigade actually began to balance out the rights they supposedly advocate rather than simply function as a megaphone for the feminisation of society? How can it possibly be reasonable that when an unplanned pregnancy occurs the woman dictates every aspect of their future prospective parenthood? If the pregnancy was truly accidental and the man doesn’t want the child but the woman does, she is completely entitled to have it but the father should not be required to support her decision in any way shape or form, including financially
Just as no one can force you to donate your blood or organs, even if it means saving someone’s life, we cannot force a woman to donate her own organs, blood, and nutrients to a fetus.
Likewise, just as no one has the legitimate right to force you to donate a room in your home or your money, even to help those in need, we cannot legitimately force a man to donate his money to a child.
If she wants to bring a child into this world, that’s fine, but her choice should not be forced on the man.
A man cannot force a woman to have a child she wants to abort; likewise, a woman cannot force a man to raise or pay for a child he wants to abort.
This shouldnt be being discussed in 2016 it should have been in place decades ago. How can one person have 99% of the choice but the person with 1% of it is expected to harbour the consequences. It’s beyond retarded. And further proof that if a ‘patriarchy’ exists, it likes to fuck over its own