Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility for an unborn child, Swedish political group say - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;49918254]I don't agree that this kind of policy would be the best way to handle the issue. It gives men an easy option to simply remove themselves from the problem and saddle all of the burden on a woman. It doesn't encourage responsible sex.[/QUOTE] The reverse argument is potentially true as well. Women have the ultimate say in whether they want to carry a pregnancy to term, even if the father is wholly opposed to have a child or seeing the child aborted. The man has no legal right to force the woman to get an abortion or to force her to not have an abortion. Thus, assuming an accidental pregnancy has occurred, the woman can effectively saddle a huge amount of financial burden on the man. I'm not at all arguing that abortion should be illegal or that women should not be able to choose whether or not they have a child for themselves, and I'm certainly no "redpill" MRA joker, but I do believe that men should have similar rights in choosing their reproductive future. The father should have the choice, early in the pregnancy while abortion is still a viable option for the mother, to make a binding decision to have no legal rights as far as the child is concerned. This would mean no child support, but also no parental rights regarding how the child is raised and/or rights to visitation or custody. Upon choosing this option, the pregnant woman then has the choice to make whatever decision she thinks best for herself, whether that be carrying the pregnancy to term or aborting it. Just to clarify, this should only be an option during early pregnancy, while similar options exist for the mother. The potential father, six months into pregnancy, getting cold feet and trying to avoid his responsibilities? No dice. You had 3-4 months to decide whether you were prepared for this child, and made the conscious decision to carry on. It is too late to prevent this from happening, which means if you are unwilling to help personally raise the child then you ought to be willing to support the mother financially as she takes on the challenge entirely by herself.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918236]You have to be willfully ignorant to not know that engaging in sexual activity without protection is probably going to end with you becoming a father. For all practical purposes, women are pretty well protected too. What I'm saying is, child support is not working as well as it should (and I'm open to change that), but the problem is - for most men - very easily solvable. Use. Protection. This is not a big problem if you're willing to use the brain with which you've been graced. On top of that judicial abortion with no questions asked opens a new can of worms that is in my opinion much bigger than the current one. Some women may not want to get an abortion, maybe because of personal conviction or pressure from people around them, and the situation they're faced with is way worse than that of the man, who could just say "Yeah, I'm not gonna support her". The woman is now faced with raising a kid as a single mother with no outside support, or face consequences from her family, friends and whatnot. Not to mention getting an abortion in itself can be emotionally scaring - after all, you have something in you that would otherwise end up as a kid, and you're making the decision to end that potential life. In comparison to that, I think the current situation is preferable. Which does not close the door on a limited form of judicial abortion where males who have actually actively (as you should, unless you want a kid) tried to avoid a pregnancy won't be hit with financial stress. Or some other solution where child support is done differently. I'm basically saying your solution is bad, not that there isn't a problem.[/QUOTE] None of what you say here justifies giving no choice whatsoever to the man once he's had sex while giving pretty much a free pass to the woman when both are equally responsible. You keep saying "just don't have unprotected sex" to men as if that advice doesn't apply to women as well. But hey I don't expect you to actually try and bring up arguments to back up your double standard seeing as you ignored that part of my last post already.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49918290]The reverse argument is potentially true as well. Women have the ultimate say in whether they want to carry a pregnancy to term, even if the father is wholly opposed to have a child or seeing the child aborted. The man has no legal right to force the woman to get an abortion or to force her to not have an abortion. Thus, assuming an accidental pregnancy has occurred, the woman can effectively saddle a huge amount of financial burden on the man. I'm not at all arguing that abortion should be illegal or that women should not be able to choose whether or not they have a child for themselves, and I'm certainly no "redpill" MRA joker, but I do believe that men should have similar rights in choosing their reproductive future. The father should have the choice, early in the pregnancy while abortion is still a viable option for the mother, to make a binding decision to have no legal rights as far as the child is concerned. This would mean no child support, but also no parental rights regarding how the child is raised and/or rights to visitation or custody. Upon choosing this option, the pregnant woman then has the choice to make whatever decision she thinks best for herself, whether that be carrying the pregnancy to term or aborting it. Just to clarify, this should only be an option during early pregnancy, while similar options exist for the mother. The potential father, six months into pregnancy, getting cold feet and trying to avoid his responsibilities? No dice. You had 3-4 months to decide whether you were prepared for this child, and made the conscious decision to carry on. It is too late to prevent this from happening, which means if you are unwilling to help personally raise the child then you ought to be willing to support the mother financially as she takes on the challenge entirely by herself.[/QUOTE] Sums it up, yes.

pretty much agree on this up to a point but [QUOTE=rndgenerator;49918258] Neither does current system, women are free to do anything since they are not held responsible for reproduction.[/QUOTE] lmao if you think it's no sweat to get an abortion

[QUOTE=_Axel;49918309]None of what you say here justifies giving no choice whatsoever to the man once he's had sex while giving pretty much a free pass to the woman when both are equally responsible. You keep saying "just don't have unprotected sex" to men as if that advice doesn't apply to women as well. But hey I don't expect you to actually try and bring up arguments to back up your double standard seeing as you ignored that part of my last post already.[/QUOTE] If you're talking about the supposed double standard, I don't think I've ignored it? Why are you being so snarky? Your last post just called my argument pro-life like (I asked "Why?" but you haven't answered that), and said that my justification didn't justify what I said it did. You didn't say how, though, so I don't really know what I'm discussing with you here? The advice applies to women as well - if the man foregoes protection but the woman uses protection, there is no problem regarding pregnancies. The problem (and the reason why I don't think you're right saying I have a double standard) is that judicial abortion =/= medicinal abortion (and paying child support =/= raising a child), and therefore I think it's fair that woman isn't in any way pressured into an abortion for economic reasons, unless there was a clear verbal commitment pre-conception (such as a deal to use a "the day after pill" or in really dumb cases, abortion) or use of contraceptives that then failed. The fact that a woman can decide to have an abortion regardless of what the man thinks is basically because of the biology of the situation, and therefore I think it's kinda dumb to call that a double standard as well. Is it clear that I've been discussing the arrangement I would like, and not actually the current laws regarding this (because I'm not sure that's the case)? My argument is basically that the initial assumptions must be: No use of contraceptives -> No verbal deal -> No judicial abortion available, woman could reasonably assume the man wanted a child, and therefore she has the final say No use of contraceptives -> Verbal deal -> Judicial abortion available Use of contraceptives -> Failure of contraceptives -> Judicial abortion available Basically the woman's options should be based on the initial assumptions - abortion isn't a contraceptive, and is in my opinion not something the man could reasonably assume she would engage in if they haven't talked about it beforehand. The same goes for the man. If the woman isn't using contraceptives, he should assume that she wants a kid. Another reasonable initial assumption could be: Man hasn't said anything about not wanting a kid -> The man isn't using any contraceptives, nor has he asked if she uses contraceptives -> The man must be interested in having a kid -> He is willing to pay child support If the man isn't willing to pay child support, that might change the woman's decision making, meaning she might've proposed contraceptives or ended up not having sex with him anyway. It basically comes down to the fact that you can't reasonably assume someone is going to use abortion in place of contraceptives, but you can reasonably assume that someone willing to engage in unprotected sex have at least accepted the potential outcome of a child. Therefore men and women shouldn't have the same rights post-conception with regards to abortion. I hope that answered your question, even though I don't really know what it was.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49915647]People act like it is so hard for men to avoid putting their dicks inside women. If you don't want responsibility of a child, the answer is simple; don't have sex.[/QUOTE] pill between the knees

Pro-lifer because your whole rhetoric is "don't want kids? Don't have sex/use contraception" which completely ignores the possibility of abortion, judicial or not. Basically you're using the same arguments as them except you restrict it to men. Your advice applies to women too yet you don't burden them with the responsibility of carrying the child to term like you do men. Your idea that women "shouldn't be pressured into an abortion because of economic reasons" comes from nowhere as well. That's already the reason behind many abortions, whether the father is there for support or not. The father not wanting to have anything to do with the child is as valid a reason as any other, and you seem to agree with this in the case of contraception failing. So that's logically not the reason why you think the two should be treated differently. You say we should go by the assumption we can make right after the act, ie if both don't use contraception that should mean they both want a kid, but if that were the case then women shouldn't be allowed to abort in this case, seeing as having unprotected sex was a tacit agreement to carrying the child. That's apparently not the case, so why should it be any different for men? Why can women change their mind but not men?

Might as well just leave this here. [url]http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-31.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=_Axel;49918582]Pro-lifer because your whole rhetoric is "don't want kids? Don't have sex/use contraception" which completely ignores the possibility of abortion, judicial or not. Basically you're using the same arguments as them except you restrict it to men. Your advice applies to women too yet you don't burden them with the responsibility of carrying the child to term like you do men.[/quote] Men [I]can't[/I] carry anything to term. I don't require women to carry anything to term, and I doubt you do either since you accused me of using pro-life arguments. As I said before, judicial abortions aren't the same as medical abortions, as there are different emotional and cultural aspects pertaining to them. There is, of course, also the small part of actually being pregnant for 9 months, going through labor, then raise the kid. But of course child support is just as strenous, right? Men can, however (like women), make decisions about using contraceptives/asking whether the woman is using contraceptives. I think you're [I]really[/I] bending the definition of the pro-life segment if you include "use contraception if you don't want kids" because that shit is pretty universal, and generally not very prevalent in the catholic segment. Abstinence is a solution too, though I don't recommend it unless you don't like sex. Abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, and I don't think any sex ed organization is recommending that. To the contrary, abortion is probably something you want to avoid. The fact that I recommend the first two over the latter is pretty universal - if you have the choice between an unwanted pregnancy/abortion, not having sex, or using contraceptives, which one would you choose? Ugh, maybe you're a dirty pro-lifer as well. Judicial abortion obviously only kinda-solves that for one party. [quote]Your idea that women "shouldn't be pressured into an abortion because of economic reasons" comes from nowhere as well. That's already the reason behind many abortions, whether the father is there for support or not. The father not wanting to have anything to do with the child is as valid a reason as any other, and you seem to agree with this in the case of contraception failing. So that's logically not the reason why you think the two should be treated differently.[/quote] You're right. It should probably have been "shouldn't be pressured into an abortion because of economic reasons that come into play only after the intercourse", e.g. the man says renounces his parenthood afterwards with no indication (verbal/contraceptive) beforehand. This is basically what I said later on in my post, as such an indication might change the woman's mind regarding having intercourse in the first place. [quote]You say we should go by the assumption we can make right after the act, [B]ie if both don't use contraception that should mean they both want a kid, but if that were the case then women shouldn't be allowed to abort in this case[/b], seeing as having unprotected sex was a tacit agreement to carrying the child. That's apparently not the case, so why should it be any different for men? Why can women change their mind but not men?[/QUOTE] [B]No that's not what I'm saying at all.[/B] It is unreasonable to [I]assume[/I] the woman will use abortion in place on contraception, but that doesn't mean she couldn't choose to do so. No one has to change their minds for this to be the case.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918692]But of course child support is just as strenous, right?[/QUOTE] I genuinely don't believe you have any idea how biased and devastating our family court systems and enforcement of their decisions can be. Do you have any idea how many men are in jail because they couldn't possibly afford what the courts told them to pay, and how many of those men commit suicide because they'll never recover? Who does that benefit? Things might not be so bad in Denmark but here men get their entire futures destroyed over child support and alimony.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49918836]I genuinely don't believe you have any idea how biased and devastating our family court systems and enforcement of their decisions can be. Do you have any idea how many men are in jail because they couldn't possibly afford what the courts told them to pay, and how many of those men commit suicide because they'll never recover? Who does that benefit? Things might not be so bad in Denmark but here men get their entire futures destroyed over child support and alimony.[/QUOTE] I know the situation sucks in the US. Can't always relate everything to the US, though. For the record I think it's downright despicable that men can go to jail because they can't pay to support a child - who does that help? It'll only make it even harder for the father to support the kid. That's the point really, I don't think this situation is fixed by having fathers renounce their parenthood - sure, that guy won't have to pay child support, but now you've potentially just pushed the burden over on the mother and the kid. In the end, it's pretty important for society to have children grow up and become useful tax payers, and therefore I think child support reform would probably be much useful to the US than judicial abortion. Maybe just finance more of it through taxes, as suggested earlier in the thread.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918692]Men [I]can't[/I] carry anything to term. I don't require women to carry anything to term, and I doubt you do either since you accused me of using pro-life arguments. As I said before, judicial abortions aren't the same as medical abortions, as there are different emotional and cultural aspects pertaining to them. There is, of course, also the small part of actually being pregnant for 9 months, going through labor, then raise the kid. But of course child support is just as strenous, right? Men can, however (like women), make decisions about using contraceptives/asking whether the woman is using contraceptives. I think you're [I]really[/I] bending the definition of the pro-life segment if you include "use contraception if you don't want kids" because that shit is pretty universal, and generally not very prevalent in the catholic segment. Abstinence is a solution too, though I don't recommend it unless you don't like sex. Abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, and I don't think any sex ed organization is recommending that. To the contrary, abortion is probably something you want to avoid. The fact that I recommend the first two over the latter is pretty universal - if you have the choice between an unwanted pregnancy/abortion, not having sex, or using contraceptives, which one would you choose? Ugh, maybe you're a dirty pro-lifer as well. Judicial abortion obviously only kinda-solves that for one party.[/Quote] Obviously abortion should be a last resort. The thing is you consider abortion a possibility as a possible solution to unprotected sex but say men shouldn't be able to have the judicial alternative in the exact same situation. [Quote]You're right. It should probably have been "shouldn't be pressured into an abortion because of economic reasons that come into play only after the intercourse", e.g. the man says renounces his parenthood afterwards with no indication (verbal/contraceptive) beforehand. This is basically what I said later on in my post, as such an indication might change the woman's mind regarding having intercourse in the first place.[/quote] And somehow that justifies denying men the same rights you grant women? There are a myriad of other things that can change the woman's mind regarding having intercourse, should we ban all of them as well? Consent can't be retroactively retracted. What if it's the man who changes his mind? The exact same scenario you seem to fear could just as well happen the other way around: What if both parties first set out to work full time to provide for the child but after impregnation the woman quit her job for personal reasons, yet want to keep her child, putting her husband in an even worse financial situation than if he were a single mother without alimony? But he doesn't have to go through labor so I guess he should just suck it up, accept his wife's decision and break his back trying to feed three mouths.See how unconditionally denying men the same rights as women can be abused?[quote][B]No that's not what I'm saying at all.[/B] It is unreasonable to [I]assume[/I] the woman will use abortion in place on contraception, but that doesn't mean she couldn't choose to do so. No one has to change their minds for this to be the case.[/QUOTE] Similarly, a man having unprotected sex shouldn't mean he can't go through judicial abortion afterwards.

[QUOTE=_Axel;49918957]Obviously abortion should be a last resort. The thing is you consider abortion a possibility as a possible solution to unprotected sex but say men shouldn't be able to have the judicial alternative in the exact same situation.[/quote] No, because I - for reasons already mentioned - don't consider those to be equivalent. [quote]And somehow that justifies denying men the same rights you grant women? There are a myriad of other things that can change the woman's mind regarding having intercourse, should we ban all of them as well? Consent can't be retroactively retracted.[/quote] I guess a woman could change her mind after she finds out the father is a murderer or whatever, sure, but the most pressing matter is probably the well-being of the child, and I think factors involved in that should be weighed pretty heavily. [quote]What if it's the man who changes his mind? The exact same scenario you seem to fear could just as well happen the other way around: What if both parties first set out to work full time to provide for the child but after impregnation the woman quit her job for personal reasons, yet want to keep her child, putting her husband in an even worse financial situation than if he were a single mother without alimony? But he doesn't have to go through labor so I guess he should just suck it up, accept his wife's decision and break his back trying to feed three mouths.See how unconditionally denying men the same rights as women can be abused?[/quote] Well personally I believe men have too little sway with regards to the custody(?) of the child. If they decided to get a child together, they should be able to share the time with the child equally. In a case where the child spends an equal amount of time with each parent, I don't think anyone should pay anything to anyone. Just because I think a loose approach to judicial abortion is a bad idea doesn't mean I think everything is peachy with regards to child custody and support. [quote]Similarly, a man having unprotected sex shouldn't mean he can't go through judicial abortion afterwards.[/QUOTE] And again, here we disagree for reason already gone over a couple of times, so I guess that's that. After answering a few questions, I'd like to ask - When do you think a male should [I]not[/I] be able to get judicial abortion?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49919365]No, because I - for reasons already mentioned - don't consider those to be equivalent.[/quote] Why? Because it's harder to undergo an actual abortion than an actual one? If science advanced enough that aborting was as simple as swallowing a pill, would you be less accepting of women going through it because it's "too easy"? [Quote]I guess a woman could change her mind after she finds out the father is a murderer or whatever, sure, but the most pressing matter is probably the well-being of the child, and I think factors involved in that should be weighed pretty heavily.[/quote] Okay, you don't explain why the woman changing her mind about intercourse is a reason for denying the mind the right to choose. I'll assume that means you have no such argument. [Quote]Well personally I believe men have too little sway with regards to the custody(?) of the child. If they decided to get a child together, they should be able to share the time with the child equally. In a case where the child spends an equal amount of time with each parent, I don't think anyone should pay anything to anyone. Just because I think a loose approach to judicial abortion is a bad idea doesn't mean I think everything is peachy with regards to child custody and support.[/quote] Uh, have you actually read what I wrote? Child custody is irrelevant, it's about whether the child should be brought to term or not and whether the father should have a say on supporting a child he doesn't want. Basically a situation that's just as difficult as being a single mother without alimony, if not worse, that can't be avoided without some kind of system that would allow the father to give up responsibility early in gestation. [Quote]And again, here we disagree for reason already gone over a couple of times, so I guess that's that. After answering a few questions, I'd like to ask - When do you think a male should [I]not[/I] be able to get judicial abortion?[/QUOTE] Basically any situation where a pregnant woman wouldn't be allowed to abort in the first place. For instance a man shouldn't be able to judicially abort if the pregnancy is too far in for the mother to abort.

This entire thread fails to empathize with the fact that child support pays for a fraction of raising a child. The woman taking care of the child bears most of the financial burden.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49919365]No, because I - for reasons already mentioned - don't consider those to be equivalent.[/QUOTE] A man can want a child, yet the mother can still abort it. I consider a man being able to legally and financially absolve responsibility for a child it does not want, to be equal in the grand scheme of things. I also take it a bit further, I think the default state should be that a genetic father isn't required to provide financial responsibility (They also have no rights to the child) until the signing of a 'Parenthood Pact' or something similar. The signing can be done anywhere from when the pregnancy is first confirmed by chemical tests up until they turn 18. This prevents a woman from getting pregnant and running away, only to come back and demand child support, even though the man didn't want, plan, or even know about the pregnancy. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49919365]After answering a few questions, I'd like to ask - When do you think a male should [I]not[/I] be able to get judicial abortion?[/QUOTE] This problem is solved by having a 'Parenthood Pact'. Since by default the man has no responsibility and no rights for the pregnancy. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GarbageCan;49920172]This entire thread fails to empathize with the fact that child support pays for a fraction of raising a child. The woman taking care of the child bears most of the financial burden.[/QUOTE] That is the result of birthing a child, something she could have avoided by giving it up or having an abortion. A man does not have any similar recourse as abortion or adoption, they are at whim of the woman's choice.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49918879]I know the situation sucks in the US. Can't always relate everything to the US, though. For the record I think it's downright despicable that men can go to jail because they can't pay to support a child - who does that help? It'll only make it even harder for the father to support the kid. That's the point really, I don't think this situation is fixed by having fathers renounce their parenthood - sure, that guy won't have to pay child support, but now you've potentially just pushed the burden over on the mother and the kid. In the end, it's pretty important for society to have children grow up and become useful tax payers, and therefore I think child support reform would probably be much useful to the US than judicial abortion. Maybe just finance more of it through taxes, as suggested earlier in the thread.[/QUOTE] This is where a guaranteed minimum income would be essential for our country. It's asinine to throw a man in jail because he isn't making enough money to sign all of it away the moment he gets it. My father almost ended up in that position. His ex-wife forced him to declare bankruptcy on his house he was having trouble to repair and sell, the child support he was sending to her was used to pay for her college tuition. He was getting choked so badly by the court he was left to live on $5 every week to pay for groceries and gas, and had to drive from one side of the county to the other side for work with a truck that sucked up gas like a vacuum cleaner. Thank god for his coworkers because if it wasn't for them he would've starved to death. We have taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, we have taxpayer funding for Medicare and Medicaid, taxpayer funding for Social Security. Why the hell can't that taxpayer funding go towards minimum income for all people earning below a certain level, which would stop the war on weekend fathers and help bring children out of poverty.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49920858]Why the hell can't that taxpayer funding go towards minimum income for all people earning below a certain level[/QUOTE]We already have that, it's called welfare and it's very taxing on the system as is. Minimum living wage is unsustainable with current level of taxes in most countries. Factor in corruption and misspendings, it's really hard to implement such a system. Of course such a system could be implemented, but no one in power to do so seems to want to.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;49920949]We already have that, it's called welfare and it's very taxing on the system as is. Minimum living wage is unsustainable with current level of taxes in most countries. Factor in corruption and misspendings, it's really hard to implement such a system. Of course such a system could be implemented, but no one in power to do so seems to want to.[/QUOTE] The welfare system as it is is clunky, the system I speak of would be a simple payment based on eligibility rather then unemployment or food stamps for people below the poverty line. The system is taxing on everyone because of the bureaucratic cost and headaches that come with it. The minimum wage system as it is nothing more then wage slavery and just leads us in circle. We raise the minimum wage, everyone earns more. Inflation goes up again and suddenly people are back in the welfare trap and have to rely on food stamps or unemployment and worry they don't get overpaid benefits. That system must be torn down and replaced with something more efficient. If you want to learn more then look up Negative Income Tax or Minimum Income.

Ok so two consenting adults agreed to have sex without a condom and accept the responsibility that she may get impregnated. She does get impregnated and now a child is in the process of being created or w/e say the dude say yo I can't financially support a child yet I think we should abort this, no disrespect no one would judge them, however she goes onto to want to give birth so its her body and her choice to give birth to the child and be cause of it being her choice to give birth or not the males hands are tied but thats is what you accept in having sex without a condom like once you cum bruh its done no backies, I personally think if you make a child wither you wanted to or not and she wants it, you should have to pay for that child, like its your fault at the end of the day imoo

I'm gonna be optimistic and assume he was being sarcastic.

[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;49921596]Ok so two consenting adults agreed to have sex without a condom and accept the responsibility that she may get impregnated. She does get impregnated and now a child is in the process of being created or w/e say the dude say yo I can't financially support a child yet I think we should abort this, no disrespect no one would judge them, however she goes onto to want to give birth so its her body and her choice to give birth to the child and be cause of it being her choice to give birth or not the males hands are tied but thats is what you accept in having sex without a condom like once you cum bruh its done no backies, I personally think if you make a child wither you wanted to or not and she wants it, you should have to pay for that child, like its your fault at the end of the day imoo[/QUOTE] "Once he cums bruh it's done no backies", abortion should be illegal because "like it's your fault at the end of the day imoo" Of course you'd have to accept that the woman was capable of consenting to the unprotected sex in that case, which I'm sure we'll all agree is a ridiculous notion. MEN make the decisions in any honest, God-fearing relationship! [editline] [/editline] [QUOTE=BelatedGamer;49921732]I'm gonna be optimistic and assume he was being sarcastic.[/QUOTE] Considering his argument was incredibly similar to most of the arguments opposing this idea, I'm not so sure.

So, in this scenario the woman has to carry the burden of abortion or pregnancy But the man doesn't have a say on whether a child gets born or not Both can opt out, but only the woman opting in matters in the end It's as fair and equal as currently possible, yes?

abortions should be illegal because the woman knew what she was getting into when she had sex, so she has to accept responsibility for her actions this is what i'm getting from the part of the thread against this potential law [editline]14th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;49921596]Ok so two consenting adults agreed to have sex without a condom and accept the responsibility that she may get impregnated. She does get impregnated and now a child is in the process of being created or w/e say the dude say yo I can't financially support a child yet I think we should abort this, no disrespect no one would judge them, however she goes onto to want to give birth so its her body and her choice to give birth to the child and be cause of it being her choice to give birth or not the males hands are tied but thats is what you accept in having sex without a condom like once you cum bruh its done no backies, I personally think if you make a child wither you wanted to or not and she wants it, you should have to pay for that child, like its your fault at the end of the day imoo[/QUOTE] what a great fucking argument "if the guy wants an abortion because he doesn't think that he can afford to have a child, he should have to pay child support that he may or may not be able to afford for the child"

What happens in cases where the guy wants the baby. but the woman doesn't? Can she get an abortion without the mans approval?

[QUOTE=Mikenopa;49930698]What happens in cases where the guy wants the baby. but the woman doesn't? Can she get an abortion without the mans approval?[/QUOTE] In that situation then the man must lose because it's the woman' decision to have the abortion or not, her body her choice. The topic in this thread is for men who simply don't want to be legal fathers and should have a right to abort all obligations at the cost of all voluntary contact, he should not be forced to pay for another woman' decision.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49930714]In that situation then the man must lose because it's the woman' decision to have the abortion or not, her body her choice. The topic in this thread is for men who simply don't want to be legal fathers and should have a right to abort all obligations at the cost of all voluntary contact, he should not be forced to pay for another woman' decision.[/QUOTE] Oh, well in that case a man should be able to abort his responsibility if he wants to. It's only fair.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49920172]This entire thread fails to empathize with the fact that child support pays for a fraction of raising a child. The woman taking care of the child bears most of the financial burden.[/QUOTE] Something she could have chosen to not do within the context of this thread (leaving after birth is different obviously) [editline]14th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;49915647]People act like it is so hard for men to avoid putting their dicks inside women. If you don't want responsibility of a child, the answer is simple; don't have sex.[/QUOTE] Sex drive is an important part of being a human being, you can't just say "lmao don't have sex", it's literally one of a human's prime directives.

I've read a lot of opinions and this thread and will say they have changed my mind from being against this idea to accepting it on a legal basis. I'm still unsure about the morality but my morality shouldn't impact legal precedents and I was allowing it to cloud my judgement. Good discussion FP.