Abortion- but for men.

To fix the "I want to have the baby, but my gf doesn't", then, whenever that's possible (if that's possible, that is), give the men the possibility to carry out the pregnancy if they want to.

What about in cases where both parties want a baby, but the female one decides the male one doesn't get to see said child but still sues him for child support? Even if both parents want the child, if they seperate for whatever reason it is not unreasonable to say the man can EXPECT to NEVER have custody of his child without jumping through an absurd number of legal hoops and be under even stricter watch so that even a slight misstep will cause total loss of custody of the child.

If women weren't so vain then maybe they would actually listen to what the father wants and the law wouldn't have to force them to.

I'm saying that there would be no need for a law like this if women actually stopped to consider what the father of their child wants. Then again, a man has to listen to what the woman wants, too. If he doesn't want the child and she does, they should come to some agreement that he should/shouldn't pay for child support on their own terms. It's really a case-by-case thing, something that can't really be generalized well. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, then maybe they can come to the conclusion that it should be treated like an adoption. She has the baby then she gives the child to him in a situation like an adoption. Though, in the first case, the man should voice his concern about the woman getting an abortion but she shouldn't be expected to get one. In the second case, the man should really ask her not to have one. It really is a hard, one-sided deal because the woman is the one carrying the child and the man isn't, but when it comes to keeping/having it they both should decide, together. If the man walks out on the woman (And I've seen this happen to 5 girls in my life so far) then she should be able to decide what she wants to do with it on her own. And that's only IF he walks out on her.

What about in cases where both parties want a baby, but the female one decides the male one doesn't get to see said child but still sues him for child support? Even if both parents want the child, if they seperate for whatever reason it is not unreasonable to say the man can EXPECT to NEVER have custody of his child without jumping through an absurd number of legal hoops and be under even stricter watch so that even a slight misstep will cause total loss of custody of the child.

Court-material? What I meant there was not serious, as it's sci-fi. I mean, take out the baby and implant it into the man.

DONT HAVE PRE-MARITAL SEX!

Hey, welcome to the 21st century. Unlike the the ages of Christian Rule, we are more open minded. In fact, almost every religion and society in history has either had neutral views, or idolized sexual intercourse as a form of recreation. Ancient Egypt didn't even have a word for 'vrigin'. It's time we move away from the closed minded doctrine of the Church, and utilize the current technological advancements. We have the tech to prevent pregnancy when we don't want it to a high degree of success, and the tech to stop an unwanted pregnancy after it has begun. We have these technologies. They hurt no one when used with consent (do NOT start an abortion debate PLEASE). Therefore we will use them.

That being said, if someone is using all of the pratical protection, and through bad luck or Law of Large Numbers happens to get pregnant, there is nothing unethical about using modern technologies to stop this, given both parents are willing. However, if the woman wants to go through with it, the man should have an avenue of escape. If he doesn't want to care for it, don't let him. If the woman doesn't want it, she can abort it (to a given time), so there's no reason a man shouldn't be allowed the same rights. There's so much hype about how women are discriminated against in society, and the movements to resolve it. "Equal rights" is a common phrase. If equal rights are the goal, men should be allowed to cut off all ties with the mother and child/children(loltwins) within the same period that the woman can abort them.

No I think its everyones responsibility to protect themselves. And guess what, the pill isnt 100% either. How do you think I got pregnant

No matter what the situation, everyone loses. Unless it was a planned thing that both parties wanted.

I would support this under the following condition:

Both partners sign an affidavit that they were using medically approved protective measures, or understood that their were medically approved protections in place to prevent the pregnancy (condom, diaphragm, vasectomy, The Pill, etc). In the event the male lied about his own protection, he's obligated. In the event the woman lied about her own protection, the male has no obligation.

In a situation where it is clearly documented that pregnancy was an unexpected outcome based on preventative measures it is reasonable to allow the male the option of divorcing himself from parental rights/obligations in the event the mother wishes to have the child without his consent (since using prophylactics is an implicit statement that the sexual act is not procreational in nature the mother choosing to have a baby is essentially "changing the rules" to something other than the male signed up for).

There have been some precedents for this, where a woman wished to conceive and rigged things in her favor so that the male thought they were having safe sex when in fact they were not. In such a circumstance the father has every right to decline parental obligation - His sperm was essentially stolen from him and used in a manner he did not condone.

On the topic of men possibly abusing this system to have sex with women and leave them if they get pregnant with this "abortion for men" thing:

If this were implemented and all the women out there KNEW that men could EASILY leave them if they got pregnant without any consequences to the male, then wouldn't this discourage people from having sex before they actually get into a committed relationship? And this would also discourage the very small minority of women who purposely get pregnant so that the male has to stay and provide with them (thus normally screwing over the male who would normally have NO decision whatsoever in it). It might actually encourage people to get married first before they begin having sex.

Of course you'd have to not allow this "abortion for men" to apply to married couples. maybe... not sure on this last one... But it sounds right to me. Maybe only allow it if they're also getting a divorce.

This would be a good thing 0.o

I'm actually not really sure what you're saying here. You've said the case for most men is not wanting the child does not equal prompt abortion, then you've said the opposite. Could you re-word your sentence?\

Mind you, the woman has usually a higher connection to the kid (duh), thus it is usually "simpler" for a man to want an abortion than the woman.

This is basically what it means. There is little/no direct consequence for male abortion which might keep the man staying when the compromise fails to be achieved (staying to better support the child in case of his birth.) Whether or not the woman wants to have the child, it is her who is going to suffer any and every possible traumas and hardship. For a woman, not wanting a child does not equal prompt abortion because there are strings attached, physical bindings, direct involvements in the child's death, depending on her viewpoint. She may not want the child at all and/or has no means to afford the birth, yet some are unable to bring themselves to ending a life by their own decision/commitment. When they do pick one way or the other, life hardship is effectively tripled for poor Sally, who picked an pimento and forgot her pills, and her child, if he has a life at all. The best part is while all the sufferings happen to one party, the other goes on enjoying his little game now made legal.

To put it in even simpler words: A man's abortion involves "to leave or not to leave" while a woman's is closer to "to kill or not to kill." And because they both contribute equally to the drama, it is fair to have them both suffer equally from it, not "Bye, it's your choice now."

Furthermore, the potential abuse, no, the very potential abuse will open way for even more abortion (because single parenting is not fun, I've seen it), which I do not claim to be bad, but neither a "whatever" deal.

On the topic of men possibly abusing this system to have sex with women and leave them if they get pregnant with this "abortion for men" thing:

If this were implemented and all the women out there KNEW that men could EASILY leave them if they got pregnant without any consequences to the male, then wouldn't this discourage people from having sex before they actually get into a committed relationship? And this would also discourage the very small minority of women who purposely get pregnant so that the male has to stay and provide with them (thus normally screwing over the male who would normally have NO decision whatsoever in it). It might actually encourage people to get married first before they begin having sex.

Of course you'd have to not allow this "abortion for men" to apply to married couples. maybe... not sure on this last one... But it sounds right to me. Maybe only allow it if they're also getting a divorce.

This would be a good thing 0.o

It would discourage women from having their children if there's any concern of commitment issues from the male. Won't discourage premarital sex. It could possibly increase rate of abortions/giving kids up for adoption, as women won't be able to leech off of other men for an income.

Sex is programmed into our DNA to be something we CRAVE. It would take a LOT to discourage it's use. See: Dropping Soap in jail.

What about the women who choose to abort when the father wants the baby? This issue works both ways - the man has no rights in either direction.

The girl could've just as easily been on birth control, or abstained from sex, or insisted on him using protection, or taking it anally for that matter, so "getting her pregnant" isn't the man's fault, it's an equally culpable action.
Saying it's the mans responsibility to not get you pregnant sets women's lib back decades.

only post i see worth noting. sorry.
the woman shouldnt be able to ask of the man anything if he is not ready to be a father/parent. unless she takes him to court he has no responsibility towards that child. 'course i speak from personal experience, but i digress.

IMO there comes a line when equality meets absurdity. this is it. men can already opt to use a condom, women can use contraceptive. men can opt for an outpatient vasectomy, women can have their tubes tied, which is more invasive, and neither are perfect forms of birth control as my mother had her tubes tied, and, well, 8 years ago my sister was born. i like that a man can go to a court and say he wants to have no part in the childs life, but that is taking the stance that the woman wants to have the kid. either he convince the girl to abort, run and sever the ties to the girl, grow a pair and be a father, or just pay child support. there are ways to circumvent that anyways, b/c that money is supposed to be used to go towards the child for food and clothing, yet how many mothers neglect their children and use the money for their own ends?

sure the idea sounds great, and i kinda do like it, but conversely i dont because theres already existing methods of it instead of going up to a judge and whining about having sex and getting a girl pregnant. unless he was raped, then i see no applicable use of this idea.

It would discourage women from having their children if there's any concern of commitment issues from the male. Won't discourage premarital sex. It could possibly increase rate of abortions/giving kids up for adoption, as women won't be able to leech off of other men for an income.

If they knew this ahead of time (aka before having sex) then they'd probably think about not having sex UNTIL they're sure the males are more committed to them aka mayhaps til they're married. And if they find that the male isn't likely to be committed to them, and will likely just leave them if they get pregnant, but the female still wants to have sex with him for some reason then it'd really be her fault if she got left.

Sex is programmed into our DNA to be something we CRAVE. It would take a LOT to discourage it's use. See: Dropping Soap in jail.

It still doesn't mean we can't have any self-control.

responses in bold.

I disagree, men like my stepfather deserve to suffer and pay, if he wants to treat the child like an object, then yes he will pay for his childs expenses, he will help with the child. If he doesn't know what his penis can do to a woman, then maybe he shouldn't of done it in the first place eh? >_>

So leaving the woman with nothing, but her crappy paycheck, If this happened to my mum, we would of been on the street, or dead, because paying 400 bucks a week for rent and on top of that you have electricity and phone bills and gas/ water bills... you can't live. >_> I disagree with it greatly. A child should know there father, even if they are a complete prick and the father should pay something because otherwise unless you work 2 jobs as a single mother you won't be able to live. >_> The child never sees there mother because of the workload, and thus you get uncontrollable, morons like we have today.

Equality between men and women, as far as I see, men still sit on there high horses thinking they are king, and women are still the lowly peasants, sure we have a few more rights, but I don't see alot of change. Besides, don't men just take off and disappear when they don't want the child anyway? Why would they pay for it, when they already do it for free.

[COLOR="Red"]

To put it in even simpler words: A man's abortion involves "to leave or not to leave" while a woman's is closer to "to kill or not to kill." And because they both contribute equally to the drama, it is fair to have them both suffer equally from it, not "Bye, it's your choice now."

I think this is a major point of the argument. Therefore, I believe that this "law" has no place in the world. But of course, within a few years, this may happen, with the way the world is going on a downward spiral.

I'm only going to say one thing, and then leave and never come back to this thread.

If a man does not want a baby, use protection, or don't have sex. I know some of you have used the argument that people "NEED" sex but I don't believe this is necessarily true. Your plantain is not going to fall off if you don't use it. As much as I love Honey Bunches of Oats, I don't NEED it. Sure, sex is great. It was created and praised in the beginning of time. But it has grown into such a perverse thing that it does not have as much respect for it as it used to.

[/COLOR]

In an attempt to further my point... why not see this instead of a way for guys to opt out, as... oh say... a deterrent for people to have sex until they are actually dedicated to one another.

For those of you saying that guys deserve to pay for getting a woman pregnant and thus should not be allowed any way to opt out your missing a point or so:
1) With the knowledge that the men have the option to sever the ties to the woman and kid, the female in question would likely not even have sex in the first place with the "men who deserve to pay for ~~~".

2) To those saying sex has been perverted and has become a recreational thing... this change might actually encourage sex away from this. It might encourage sex away from just recreational, to between people who are actually married or in very serious relationships.

3) To those will respond by saying that people will still do it recreationally but just use protection instead: This still doesn't refute my point. At the very least couples will be MUCH more careful (at least women) when choosing who to have sex with due to the guy's option to leave her completely if she gets pregnant. This might actually result in a drastically reduced amount of cases with single mothers.

Not sure if I missed anything here, will respond to other issues later.

I don't accept it when people say "if he didn't want a child he should have used protection", because contraception responsibility can also fall on the woman, and it's easy for a woman to lie about having taken the pill. Also, there is that time when contraception fails, which DOES happen. As for sex being a need, of course it's not going to fall off it you don't have sex. Sex is a physiological need.

I'm seeing a developing trend here. I'm seeing people say things like "he shouldn't have had sex with her" or "he should have used protection" etc. as if sex is entirely carried out by a man. The woman has an equal part in all this, yet you are ignoring it.

p.s lets remember its a fetus, not a child, its not conscient.

also, saying that a man has no choice because of the woman and that she might have a hell of a hard time raising it alone is flawed, because. Shes choosing to KEEP the child, therefore shes choosing to invest 18 years of money into it.

she shouldn't have the right to oblige the man into investing his money as well if he didn't want to have the child in the first place.

[COLOR="Green"]The issue is that men can get a girl pregnant and then ditch her, ruining the girl's life forever. I don't agree, however, that women should instantly get to have control over the man's life life forever just because of the kid.

So I don't agree with you, but I believe that the laws on the womens's side needs some softening.

Also people, there are male and female condoms. Women can protect themselves too.[/COLOR]

p.s lets remember its a fetus, not a child, its not conscient.

This is not entirely proven. Some people believe it's true, some people don't. There's a lot of controversy; it's one of the main reasons for the "Is abortion good or bad?" arguement.

Just thought I should point that out, though not saying you're not welcome to have your own opinion

I really hate this argument. Sex is a human NEED. And why does everyone keep saying 'if you get a woman pregnant' like it's always the man's fault? It takes two to tango, contraception is equally available to women. Yes, I would put a woman through that hardship alone. A woman that refuses to listen to me on a monumentally large decision that will have an astronomical impact on advancement of our lives and careers clearly doesn't give a damn about me. And once more, she doesn't HAVE to keep it.

Go find me 3 people who have died only due to the fact that they haven't had sex. Sex is only programmed into our brains as a want; we want to reproduce to keep the human species alive. It's a 'survival skill', so to speak. You can live only a few days without food or water, but you could live a whole lifetime without sex.

And I never said it doesn't take two people to do it, I know they both equally share that (poor) decision to have sex. And if you'd let a woman suffer raising your child that you want nothing to do with, you deserve to burn in hell.

And I never said it doesn't take two people to do it, I know they both equally share that (poor) decision to have sex. And if you'd let a woman suffer raising your child that you want nothing to do with, you deserve to burn in hell.

Is the inverse true? If a man wants to keep the baby, but the woman doesn't want to put up with the birthing progress, does the woman deserve to burn in hell?