Talk:Male abortion

This is not nonsense. This is a true and legal theory. I am developing more information on this topic for a research article and will add more here as I find it. This is something that should be considered in the abortion debate. This topic is about equal rights of Men and Women. Though I may not agree with the theory I do think it has points that should be discussed. This is no different a legal theory than equitable estopple. If this article needs to be cleaned up or certain information should be added please let me know what should be done. --Rafikiro 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

Has anyone notable bothered to criticize this idea? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the men's equal right to abortion in general? I'm not sure. Please feel free to post some information if you come across it. Jwri7474 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The term has been used by a few groups and in court of law to refer to a theoretical men's equal right to abortion. It is verifiable and has been cited. Why should we have to delete it? Just because something is not a commonly used term doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Jwri7474 (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I've flagged the article for merger, since there was something of a consensus for it, and my recommendation is Paternal rights and abortion. Objections, comments, concerns?--Tznkai (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• How about merging to Child_support#Political_opinions? Despite the name, this actually has nothing to do with abortion (the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus). Rather it is mostly about child support. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you seem to be right. Damn political framing.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Fathers' rights movement--Tznkai (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough one. The fathers' rights movement is about issues of concern to divorced/divorcing fathers, people who assert they want to be involved fathers. This topic is rather the opposite: men who don't want to be a fathers who are being forced to be one. In fact there is already significant summaries of this topic, here Paternal rights and abortion, and here Reproductive rights, as well as a briefer reference here Masculism. I think I would be inclined to expand one or other of the two principal pages with the information contained here.--Slp1 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, either really. Anyone wants to do the merge? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A few points

And questions:

1. As noted above, this has nothing to do with abortion, it's just an attention-grabbing phrase.

2. Has any court actually upheld the idea, or is it just legalistic theory?

3. How is this practically any different from the expression, as old as humankind, "Love 'em and leave 'em"?

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was "keep. with consensus for merge, when a suitable target is found." Someone should get around to it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the AFD, I just would like to know if any court as ever actually ruled in this idea's favor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I could find when searched about it last year. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the legalistic equivalent of "vaporware". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

<-----How about merging this into Paternal rights and abortion? Seem like a logical target? Dawn Bard (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion above. I suggest merging to Child_support#Political_opinions as this has very little to do with actual abortion. I was going to do the merge last autumn, but forgot about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - you're definitely right about this not having much to do with abortion, and I really don't see how it deserves its own article. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead with the merge to Child_support#Criticism_of_child_support_policies. The section could use some work. For reference, the same thing is also written about in Paternal_rights_and_abortion#Controversy, Men's_rights#Reproductive_rights_and_equality, Reproductive_rights#Reproductive_rights_as_men.27s_rights Dubay v. Wells, and I just removed it from Sexism#Popular_Policy_and_Culture. I think these need some attention as this is a rather obscure concept. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article reeks of opinion and lacks too many sources

"The most common criticism the theory of the "male abortion" is to make an issue of the fact that a man has to inseminate a woman in order to make her pregnant. In cases where it is the male's idea to participate in sexual intercourse with the woman, it could be said that if the man had never done so, the woman wouldn't hold the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first place."

This is a weak argument that borders on stupidity, first of all. (Who cares if it was the male's suggestion to initiate intercourse? The female would be just as much at fault for consenting to his suggestion.) But that's beside the point...more importantly there are no citations whatsoever to back up the claim, and contains the weasel phrase "it could be said". It should be deleted. Mikhajlovich (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)