Should men have a say in abortion?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Well, this should be nice and controversial.

Should men have a say in abortion? If so, how much of a say? Advice, like now?

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child. If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

He also doesnīt need to pay child support. But maybe Iīm approaching this issue from the wrong angle? What do you think? Should having a child be a two-part desision, like the creation of one? Should males just suck it up and use a condom?

Opinions, people!

No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

Well, if a couple is living together, I would hope they would discuss how they both feel about getting an abortion before the wife makes a decision on whether or not to get one... But no, not in any "official" way.

This reminds me of a monty python sketch from the best movie...

To be honest, this does sort of bother me. While I'm aware that cartoons like this put the issue in too simple of terms, it does raise an important question - why is it so much more simple for the woman to opt out of the responsibilities of parenthood than it is for the man? It's worth remembering that unlike Syphilis, pregnancy is easily dealt with and generally required both parties to agree.

First off I believe that abortion is only justifiable in worst case scenarios such as when the life of the mother is in danger. At that point it should be the mother who makes the final decision but ideally I think the parents should discuss the matter as it is THEIR child. Of course the mother should have the final say.

One'd hope the couple would sit down and talk stuff over whenever a significant decision is to be made. You know, the decisions that ought to be about a couple that is in a relationship, not about two individuals who happen to be in a relationship.

awesomeClaw:
Well, this should be nice and controversial.

Should men have a say in abortion? If so, how much of a say? Advice, like now?

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child. If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

He also doesnīt need to pay child support. But maybe Iīm approaching this issue from the wrong angle? What do you think? Should having a child be a two-part desision, like the creation of one? Should males just suck it up and use a condom?

Opinions, people!

Should "men" have a say? Well no, not anybody that has a relation to the girl/women should have a say. However (imho) if the "girl" is minor(which is determined by where you live), then the father (as well as the mother or who ever is legal guardian) should have a say of whether or not their child can have a baby. I type this because, I don't think that a teenager is fully mature enough or experienced enough in the world to make such a life changing decisions (I'm generalizing). Just look at the MTV show Teen Mom to see how it can affect people. That is the only family members that I think should have a say.

As for the girl/woman's boyfriend/husband/lover/one-night-stand, in the case that the girl is a minor and the family agrees with her decision to keep the future baby, the person she slept with should have a say if he wants her to get an abortion. However, presuming both parties are legal adults, I think the guys should have a say in whether or not there should be an abortion. My reason for this is that without the guy, the girl would not have become pregnant and if she decides she wants to keep the future baby, then it will greatly affect the guy's future for the rest of his life. However don't get me wrong, if the adult women wants to get an abortion and the guy is apposed to it, I would support the women in that situation. Basically I feel that if EITHER party wants to have the abortion take place, it should be allowed/done.

awesomeClaw:
Well, this should be nice and controversial.

Should men have a say in abortion? If so, how much of a say? Advice, like now?

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child. If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

He also doesnīt need to pay child support. But maybe Iīm approaching this issue from the wrong angle? What do you think? Should having a child be a two-part desision, like the creation of one? Should males just suck it up and use a condom?

Opinions, people!

So a guy gets a girl knocked up, and you want to punish the mother and child and let the guy walk away with no consequences? Tell me you are joking.

There are far too many possibilities, variables and individual situations to give a clear and concise 'yes' or 'no' answer to that question.

image
So "maybe".

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Men have a vested interest in the results as well though. Often laws concerning child rearing are quite biased against them with regards to paying child support and the like. Should a man be forced into possible financial ruin for the next 18+ years of his life because the condom broke and the woman lied about being on the pill?

One guy I met, his (now ex-)girlfriend tried to tie him to her by using a pregnancy. He'd had a vasectomy long before they had met and the only reason he got out of it was because he had the good sense to see it coming and had his lawyer sort out medical papers and whatnot. Otherwise he likely would've been stuck paying for a kid that wasn't his.

I agree that women have a great deal more to bear with regards to the child (being that they have to bring it to term and all), but to say that Men should have no say in something which could force a huge, unwanted change on their life is equally as offensive, I think.

Seekster:
First off I believe that abortion is only justifiable in worst case scenarios such as when the life of the mother is in danger. At that point it should be the mother who makes the final decision but ideally I think the parents should discuss the matter as it is THEIR child. Of course the mother should have the final say.

What about if the "mother" is a minor, lets say 15 years old. Shouldn't her parents/legal guardian have final say seeing as how this decision has the possibility to greatly affect the future of the "mother", "father" and the baby? I'm not trying to trash talk all teenagers, but I don't know if at 15yrs old, a person is mature enough and has experienced enough of the world to make such a life changing decision.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

So a guy gets a girl knocked up, and you want to punish the mother and child and let the guy walk away with no consequences? Tell me you are joking.

Why is it that it's assumed that every unwanted pregnancy happens because the guy was irresponsible?

How about if the woman "forgot" to take her pills to get herself knocked up, even when her partner didn't want a kid?

Too many possibilities to just cover them with a blanket statement, and as I said, decisions on such a level should be talked about before decided upon. If either partner in a relationship can do whatever they damn well please all the time, without discussing stuff with the other one, then it's not much of a relationship, is it?

Vegosiux:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

So a guy gets a girl knocked up, and you want to punish the mother and child and let the guy walk away with no consequences? Tell me you are joking.

Why is it that it's assumed that every unwanted pregnancy happens because the guy was irresponsible?

How about if the woman "forgot" to take her pills to get herself knocked up, even when her partner didn't want a kid?

Too many possibilities to just cover them with a blanket statement.

And what if a guy lies and tells a girl that he loves her, then decides to get out after he accidentally got her pregnant? Under the system the OP described, he walks away scot-free.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Vegosiux:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

So a guy gets a girl knocked up, and you want to punish the mother and child and let the guy walk away with no consequences? Tell me you are joking.

Why is it that it's assumed that every unwanted pregnancy happens because the guy was irresponsible?

How about if the woman "forgot" to take her pills to get herself knocked up, even when her partner didn't want a kid?

Too many possibilities to just cover them with a blanket statement.

And what if a guy lies and tells a girl that he loves her, then decides to get out after he accidentally got her pregnant? Under the system the OP described, he walks away scot-free.

What if a girl tells the guy she's on the pill and there's no chance of getting pregnant, and she was lying? I hope he didn't have any serious plans, because he's stuck with a kid he never wanted and didn't plan on. I've heard of women going as far as to poke holes in condoms to get a kid that their partner doesn't want.

Too many possibilities.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

And what if a guy lies and tells a girl that he loves her, then decides to get out after he accidentally got her pregnant? Under the system the OP described, he walks away scot-free.

See, that's the problem with "what if"s. Almost every one we can imagine can happen and has likely happened already.

But what if (see, again!) it's the other way around; the man wants the child, but the woman wants an abortion?

Vegosiux:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

And what if a guy lies and tells a girl that he loves her, then decides to get out after he accidentally got her pregnant? Under the system the OP described, he walks away scot-free.

See, that's the problem with "what if"s. Almost every one we can imagine can happen and has likely happened already.

But what if (see, again!) it's the other way around; the man wants the child, but the woman wants an abortion?

He isn't the one with a living being growing inside of him. The final decision is always the woman's.

Amnestic:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Vegosiux:

Why is it that it's assumed that every unwanted pregnancy happens because the guy was irresponsible?

How about if the woman "forgot" to take her pills to get herself knocked up, even when her partner didn't want a kid?

Too many possibilities to just cover them with a blanket statement.

And what if a guy lies and tells a girl that he loves her, then decides to get out after he accidentally got her pregnant? Under the system the OP described, he walks away scot-free.

What if a girl tells the guy she's on the pill and there's no chance of getting pregnant, and she was lying? I hope he didn't have any serious plans, because he's stuck with a kid he never wanted and didn't plan on.

Too many possibilities.

I know this has been joked about, but legal documents before sex sound pretty fair. Again, it sounds ridiculous, but it would do the job. If a person is that worried about it, of course.

awesomeClaw:
Should men have a say in abortion? If so, how much of a say? Advice, like now?

I'd say the woman should get roughly 80% of a say, and the man should get 20%. Until they come up with a way for men to carry the baby to term.

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child. If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

I cannot see any problem this proposal solves. It just seems like wishing for legal support in being a dead-beat dad.

I think a guy should obviously have a say. Frankly I think that if he could prove paternity to a certainty he should be able to veto an abortion. That child growing inside her is half his DNA. It is as much his as hers, its location notwithstanding. That's ethically and logically. In reality the problem with this is that any method of proving paternity would obviously involve getting the mother's permission and would be VERY horrible for the mother since it would involve getting a sample of fluid from her womb. And that really just isn't gonna happen if she wants to get rid of it is it?

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Vegosiux:

But what if (see, again!) it's the other way around; the man wants the child, but the woman wants an abortion?

He isn't the one with a living being growing inside of him. The final decision is always the woman's.

That doesn't answer the question, which I may have worded badly. The question being, "Why is it acceptable for the woman to refuse parenthood, but not the man?"

Now before we spin a circle again, let me add another one, which is also not rare. "Why is it acceptable for a woman to carry the child to term then leave it with the man, but not acceptable for the man to walk away, leaving the child with the woman?" Because that does happen if the woman agrees she'll carry the child to term (or she's against abortion but still doesn't want the kid).

See, I support the pro-choice position and if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, she should be able to do so. What I have a problem with is the fact that the way this discussion is going makes it look like it's all about who should have the last word in a relationship-affecting decision, but if it's about having the last word...how in the nine hells of Baator was such a relationship going to work in the first place?

Vegosiux:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Vegosiux:

But what if (see, again!) it's the other way around; the man wants the child, but the woman wants an abortion?

He isn't the one with a living being growing inside of him. The final decision is always the woman's.

That doesn't answer the question, which I may have worded badly. The question being, "Why is it acceptable for the woman to refuse parenthood, but not the man?"

Now before we spin a circle again, let me add another one, which is also not rare. "Why is it acceptable for a woman to carry the child to term then leave it with the man, but not acceptable for the man to walk away, leaving the child with the woman?" Because that does happen if the woman agrees she'll carry the child to term (or she's against abortion but still doesn't want the kid).

See, I support the pro-choice position. What I have a problem with is the fact that the way this discussion is going makes it look like it's all about who should have the last word in a relationship-affecting decision, but if it's about having the last word...how in the nine hells of Baator was such a relationship going to work in the first place?

A woman can just saddle a guy with custody of the child? If that is true, then it definitely changes things. Of course, all of this is still occurring inside of the woman's body. I may be repeating myself, but that is the most important factor.

Amnestic:
There are far too many possibilities, variables and individual situations to give a clear and concise 'yes' or 'no' answer to that question.

image
So "maybe".

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Men have a vested interest in the results as well though. Often laws concerning child rearing are quite biased against them with regards to paying child support and the like. Should a man be forced into possible financial ruin for the next 18+ years of his life because the condom broke and the woman lied about being on the pill?

One guy I met, his (now ex-)girlfriend tried to tie him to her by using a pregnancy. He'd had a vasectomy long before they had met and the only reason he got out of it was because he had the good sense to see it coming and had his lawyer sort out medical papers and whatnot. Otherwise he likely would've been stuck paying for a kid that wasn't his.

I agree that women have a great deal more to bear with regards to the child (being that they have to bring it to term and all), but to say that Men should have no say in something which could force a huge, unwanted change on their life is equally as offensive, I think.

While I sympathize with a guy in that situation, this is more of a matter of physical medical autonomy. With very few exceptions (which are almost always due to incapacity to make a decision), only the patient has control over what procedure s/he undergoes or doesn't undergo. This still applies to abortion, regardless of the consequences.

In the situation that you describe, it may be best to have a three-party signed statement stating that the male completely signs away his rights and responsibilities to the resulting child after being willing to fund a procedure or showing a financial statement that suggest he will be unable to support a child financially. Giving them a say in abortion decisions, however, grossly deviates from the ethics regarding medical practices.

Vegosiux:
That doesn't answer the question, which I may have worded badly. The question being, "Why is it acceptable for the woman to refuse parenthood, but not the man?"

That requires a slightly twisted way of looking at abortion.

Abortion, fundamentally, is not a "method of avoiding parenthood", it's a method of terminating pregnancy. A man cannot generally experience pregnancy, so his rights end at an epidermal boundaries of the person he impregnated. You cannot enforce the right to have an aspirator stuck up someone any more than you could force them to get breast implants.

When we have sex, we take a risk, it's a risk which stems from the physical action you are performing with your bodies. This is why a person must consent to sexual activity and be of appropriate age and sound mind to do so, because the action can have physical and legal consequences for them.

"But everyone has sex!" is no excuse. Indeed, everyone has sex, just like everyone crosses the road or drives a car, and the vast majority who do so can be presumed to know that there might be negative consequences. It is the responsibility of the consenting party to minimize the risks, it's not the responsibility of the legal system to cover for them if they fail to do so.

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but on a theoretical level I fail to see a better alternative. Your semen isn't going to impregnate anyone by itself, you're never at any risk you didn't consent to (and if you were, you've got bigger problems).

Vegosiux:
Now before we spin a circle again, let me add another one, which is also not rare. "Why is it acceptable for a woman to carry the child to term then leave it with the man, but not acceptable for the man to walk away, leaving the child with the woman?" Because that does happen if the woman agrees she'll carry the child to term (or she's against abortion but still doesn't want the kid).

I don't really see what you're talking about.. both are perfectly legal, however, in both cases an application can be made for child support from the absent parent.

The Gentleman:

In the situation that you describe, it may be best to have a three-party signed statement stating that the male completely signs away his rights and responsibilities to the resulting child after being willing to fund a procedure or showing a financial statement that suggest he will be unable to support a child financially.

As long as such a thing stands up in court and the man can fully and completely wash his hands of the matter, then that's fine. I obviously don't want women to lose the right to make medical decisions concerning their body, but as a man who occasionally involves himself with women, I'd like the freedom to back away from a woman who's trying to force parenthood upon me. If nothing else, I'm fairly certain I'd be a terrible father.

Frankly this whole thing would be better as soon as we invent a technology to raise foetuses in tanks (real test tube babies) and women wouldn't be needed to carry the parasites around with them anymore.

awesomeClaw:
Well, this should be nice and controversial.

Not really, no. (And this thread has been done repeatedly)

It's simple, they have full say in any abortion that they want done on themselves. Like all other medical procedures, they have no say in what procedures are done on other people.

Gee, that was easy.

The man should have no legal say in whether the woman has an abortion or not. Period. Unfortunately there is no reasonable way to qualify this type of thing. Did the woman get pregnant intentionally, did the man just lie to her to get her in the sack, or was it simply an accident(hopefully a happy one)?

It would be impossible for an impartial third party to answer these questions beyond a shadow of a doubt. In situations like this, you go with the default, and the default here is there is a child, two people had a hand in creating it, and both should be responsible for it.

I agree with the OP
If they woman decides to continue when the man should be able to opt-out.

Amnestic:

The Gentleman:

In the situation that you describe, it may be best to have a three-party signed statement stating that the male completely signs away his rights and responsibilities to the resulting child after being willing to fund a procedure or showing a financial statement that suggest he will be unable to support a child financially.

As long as such a thing stands up in court and the man can fully and completely wash his hands of the matter, then that's fine. I obviously don't want women to lose the right to make medical decisions concerning their body, but as a man who occasionally involves himself with women, I'd like the freedom to back away from a woman who's trying to force parenthood upon me. If nothing else, I'm fairly certain I'd be a terrible father.

Frankly this whole thing would be better as soon as we invent a technology to raise foetuses in tanks (real test tube babies) and women wouldn't be needed to carry the parasites around with them anymore.

You already have that freedom, simply don't stick your dick in a woman you don't want to get pregnant. Failing that, then use a condom and roll dice that are heavily loaded in your favor.

evilthecat:

Vegosiux:
Now before we spin a circle again, let me add another one, which is also not rare. "Why is it acceptable for a woman to carry the child to term then leave it with the man, but not acceptable for the man to walk away, leaving the child with the woman?" Because that does happen if the woman agrees she'll carry the child to term (or she's against abortion but still doesn't want the kid).

I don't really see what you're talking about.. both are perfectly legal, however, in both cases an application can be made for child support from the absent parent.

I'm talking about the fact that this isn't a yes or no question, simple as.

May be a little rough at pointing it out, but the matter isn't simple (the countless legal proceedings people are involved in over child custody and related issues kinda speak for that) and to handwave it with a blanket statement is slightly callous.

And the fact that there's a gender debate lying so close under the surface of it discomforts me, cause I hate those; so I'll just reiterate my only real point in this thread:

Such a decision has to be discussed - just like any other important decision in any given relationship.

Some form of opt-out for the man seems like the best of a number of bad solutions to a very bad situation. There are still some pretty serious problems with it (such as if the woman will not have an abortion on religious grounds, but the man is fine with it) though.

Under no circumstance should the man be able to force the woman to have an abortion though, that just goes against all medical ethics and personal liberties.

Vegosiux:

evilthecat:

Vegosiux:
Now before we spin a circle again, let me add another one, which is also not rare. "Why is it acceptable for a woman to carry the child to term then leave it with the man, but not acceptable for the man to walk away, leaving the child with the woman?" Because that does happen if the woman agrees she'll carry the child to term (or she's against abortion but still doesn't want the kid).

I don't really see what you're talking about.. both are perfectly legal, however, in both cases an application can be made for child support from the absent parent.

I'm talking about the fact that this isn't a yes or no question, simple as.

May be a little rough at pointing it out, but the matter isn't simple (the countless legal proceedings people are involved in over child custody and related issues kinda speak for that) and to handwave it with a blanket statement is slightly callous.

And the fact that there's a gender debate lying so close under the surface of it discomforts me, cause I hate those; so I'll just reiterate my only real point in this thread:

Such a decision has to be discussed - just like any other important decision in any given relationship.

No, I am with evilthecat, what ARE you talking about? Where did you get that it was viewed as acceptable for the woman to leave the child? Also, that is rare, aside from adoption, which is not the same as you are describing. I know of only three encounters where the guy raised the children and the mother was only involved as legally required, but I have heard literally hundreds where the mother is/was raising the children, and the father was only involved as far as he was legally forced to.

RicoGrey:

No, I am with evilthecat, what ARE you talking about? Where did you get that it was viewed as acceptable for the woman to leave the child? Also, that is rare, aside from adoption, which is not the same as you are describing. I know of only three encounters where the guy raised the children and the mother was only involved as legally required, but I have heard literally hundreds where the mother is/was raising the children, and the father was only involved as far as he was legally forced to.

And were the women in question subject to anywhere near the same amount of flak as a man is when he walks away?

Not unless they are the one that's pregnant.

Additionally, women shouldn't have a say about other people's abortions either.

The person who is pregnant is the person who decides if they want to terminate the pregnancy.

RicoGrey:
You already have that freedom, simply don't stick your dick in a woman you don't want to get pregnant.

Except nor you nor your own church are the owner of every other person or their sexuality, so it's not your place to say something like that.

Volf99:

Seekster:
First off I believe that abortion is only justifiable in worst case scenarios such as when the life of the mother is in danger. At that point it should be the mother who makes the final decision but ideally I think the parents should discuss the matter as it is THEIR child. Of course the mother should have the final say.

What about if the "mother" is a minor, lets say 15 years old. Shouldn't her parents/legal guardian have final say seeing as how this decision has the possibility to greatly affect the future of the "mother", "father" and the baby? I'm not trying to trash talk all teenagers, but I don't know if at 15yrs old, a person is mature enough and has experienced enough of the world to make such a life changing decision.

Hmm good point, if the parents still have legal authority over a teen mother then you are right, the parents have a greater say than the father of the baby, though even then I think the teenage mother should have the final say, it is her life after all. Legally I am not sure how that would work and in fact I think if a parent refuses to give consent then a doctor cannot give an abortion.

For the record I do believe a parent has the right to know if their child is under 18 and plans on getting an abortion even if they do not consent to it.

So in short (keeping in mind that I believe the ONLY time abortion should even be an option is in a worst case scenario, I want to emphasize that) I would support requiring parental notification but I do not think the parents should have the final say even if the mother of the child is underage. On a side note though I WOULD expect the father of the child to be there and support the mother or else castrate himself so he is not mistaken for a man (yes I do have strong opinions on that matter). That baby is YOUR doing as much as it is hers so you better be there to support her whatever may come.

Vegosiux:
May be a little rough at pointing it out, but the matter isn't simple (the countless legal proceedings people are involved in over child custody and related issues kinda speak for that) and to handwave it with a blanket statement is slightly callous.

Child custody is not really an issue here. There is not really any situation in which you will be forced to take custody of a child you explicitly don't want, because if nothing else that would not be in the interests of the child.

Both partners can walk away from the situation. A man can do so immediately after coitus if he so wishes, no law will ever compel him to come back and raise the child. All that may happen, and it may happen in either case, is that the custodial partner may make an application for child support.

Vegosiux:
And the fact that there's a gender debate lying so close under the surface of it discomforts me, cause I hate those; so I'll just reiterate my only real point in this thread:

I see gender debates in everything, so I'll confess to being a little confused as to which one you mean in this case. Regardless, if the law specifically operated on the grounds of gender, it would be in breach of equality legislation, certainly in the UK and I imagine in the US as well. Legal definitions or decisions almost never depend on whether someone is a man or a woman.. they may however depend on whether someone is pregnant.

Vegosiux:
Such a decision has to be discussed - just like any other important decision in any given relationship.

I think it's fairly presumptuous, under the circumstances, to call it a relationship.

Imagine my husband has beaten and/or sexually assaulted me for over a decade, and I've finally found the courage to leave after years of genuinely fearing that he might kill me if I tried. Are you genuinely saying that during my custody proceedings I should have to sit down with him and talk about our relationship? Are you saying that if it emerged that I was pregnant I should be forced to sit down and get his permission to abort or keep the child?

The fact is that however much he might care for me and care for our children, I am perfectly within my rights to never speak to that person again. This is why the law exists.. if every case was amicable and could be resolved by sitting down around a table, then the law itself would be unnecessary.

RicoGrey:

You already have that freedom, simply don't stick your dick in a woman you don't want to get pregnant. Failing that, then use a condom and roll dice that are heavily loaded in your favor.

"Women already have the freedom not to bring a child to term: Just don't have sex!"

Same stupid argument. It cuts both ways.

I do use a condom, but I've met guys who found their condoms sabotaged by their partners (who didn't remain partners much longer, needless to say). And after the tear occurs during sex, it's pretty hard to say whether it was a natural ('accidental') tear or deliberate sabotage. Hell, vasectomies can even naturally reverse themselves (though it's incredibly rare, it is possible).

Yes, we always roll the dice when we have sex. I'm not sure why you think that makes it okay for men to have no say whatsoever in what happens to their lives should a pregnancy occur.

Seekster:
That baby is YOUR doing as much as it is hers so you better be there to support her whatever may come.

Bugger off. If I get tricked into creating life I don't want any part of that woman or her bastard spawn, and I'm not sure why you think I should have to support her.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked