Abortion- but for men.

i see the point, you want men to be able to take no responsibility if they have sex and get a girl pregnant

Both parties have equal opportunity to use protection.
Both parties have equal participation in copulation.
But only the female has the right to choose abortion if a child is conceived.

That is the point you are missing. Rick is trying to discuss that imbalance in the powers between gender, because once a child is conceived the father has no rights, only obligations, which can be argued as grossly unfair.
Please stay on point, or stay out.

I happen to find it a bit unfair if the man can shake off all his responsibilities in pursuit for "equal" rights. While you may say that the baby is in the girl's body and it is totally her own rights whatever the to do to it, the fact that such a thing is attached to your flesh also limits what you can choose to do.
In such a case, a man's decision is simply deal or no deal, while a woman has complications regarding her health risk and/or the possible guilt of homicide, depending on the individual in question, along with other weird pomegranate.

Sure a bit control over the situation for us men is nice, but in how many situations can it be right? And in how many other situations is it subject to abuse?

Fuck and Run, now you can do it legally. Yeah, I can totally see the potential.

whats my name? its on the top left of all my posts..

learn2forum

Oh the ironing.

Anyway Rick, I agree the guy is pretty screwed if he accidentally knocks up a chick and that alone is enough to say why statistics of guys bailing is high. But while having no say in the matter is a problem, giving guys the right to 100% bail out is not the "right" thing to do either. Being a guy, I'd say bailing out with 100% freedom leaving the chick you knocked up all on her own is pretty low. I'd say have some thing like having to pay 20%, 50%, etc of child support or some other compromise.

Unless a female abortion is 20% or 50% aborted, no. Yes, the system can be abused, but so can the current system. Every system is going to have some flaws. There is no fair way to compromise.

Unless a female abortion is 20% or 50% aborted, no. Yes, the system can be abused, but so can the current system. Every system is going to have some flaws. There is no fair way to compromise.

Then what are you suggesting here? Reverse abuse? And that's called equality?

It's not a complete give that the rate of abuse will be high. But with the current system, a man who simply isn't ready is stuck with an unwanted child that he must support for 18 years, and child support is a large financial drain. With this system, in the unfortunate event the man does leave, the woman still has options. If she truly wants the baby and feels she is ready for it, she can be a solo parent. If she doesn't, she still does have the option to abort or even adopt the baby out.

Current system:
Women = choices
Men = none

This system:
Both = choices

If you're gonna have sex and you get a girl pregnant, you should have to pay the consequences. It's not that babies fault their daddy is a douche bag that doesn't want them.

Maybe you should wrap your penis instead of screwing everything with a vagina.

With this system, in the unfortunate event the man does leave, the woman still has options. If she truly wants the baby and feels she is ready for it, she can be a solo parent. If she doesn't, she still does have the option to abort or even adopt the baby out.

Yes Rick, but what if both of them do not want the child while one is bound to her complications of being ATTACHED to a lump of flesh while the other party rides on his horse to a far far away land without even looking back?

The problem here is that the two abortions are not the same concept. Ditching unwanted responsibilities is easy for any given man, while getting rid of a life form that lives inside of you is another story. Sure the ladies still have the choice, but not giving two shits about the other party when pursuing your own convenience is very distasteful to me.

Before: I'm bound to your decision, make your choice.
After: I'm outta here, make your choice.

If you're gonna have sex and you get a girl pregnant, you should have to pay the consequences. It's not that babies fault their daddy is a douche bag that doesn't want them.

Maybe you should wrap your penis instead of screwing everything with a vagina.

Popping a birth control pill is so much easier.

Yes Rick, but what if both of them do not want the child while one is bound to her complications of being ATTACHED to a lump of flesh while the other party rides on his horse to a far far away land without even looking back?

The problem here is that the two abortions are not the same concept. Ditching unwanted responsibilities is easy for any given man, while getting rid of a life form that lives inside of you is another story. Sure the ladies still have the choice, but not giving two shits about the other party when pursuing your own convenience is very distasteful to me.

Before: I'm bound to your decision, make your choice.
After: I'm outta here, make your choice.

First off, if both of them don't want the child, why would they separate?

And no, if you're in a true relationship, do you think it will be easy for a man to turn his back on the woman when it is pretty much guaranteed it will break them up forever? And the current system HAS that distastefulness, but it is administered by the woman.

If you're gonna have sex and you get a girl pregnant, you should have to pay the consequences. It's not that babies fault their daddy is a douche bag that doesn't want them.

Maybe you should wrap your penis instead of screwing everything with a vagina.

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.

Personally, I am in support of it. Men are royally screwed over when it comes to pregnancy. Once a woman gets pregnant, she holds the direction of the man's entire future in her hands. I am not ok with that. The man may not feel he is ready for parenthood, be it mentally or financially, but the way things are he has absolutely no rights. The woman can choose to have the baby and the man is then legally obligated to financially support the child at the very least, even if he is in no position. On the other hand, if the woman feels she is not ready, she has the ability to put a stop to it (even if the man wants the baby, which is another way men get screwed). You can't force a woman to have an abortion, that's just awful, but I feel men should have the same rights as women.

Devil's Lawyer incoming.

By accepting this, men might abuse and leave a higher stress level on the average woman. Even with child support, single women with kids have a hard time getting in enough money. If the child-support is removed, it would make it impossible to earn enough for some families. Therefore, you are giving some women a quite hard question: Shall I take an abortion, or should I give birth to this child and give it a horrible youth?

Another problem with this, is a specific part of the quote:

Men are royally screwed over when it comes to pregnancy. Once a woman gets pregnant, she holds the direction of the man's entire future in her hands. I am not ok with that.

Let me assume your idea is applied. Could a quote like this be a reality?

Women are royally screwed over when it comes to pregnancy. Once a woman gets pregnant, the father holds the direction of the woman and child's entire future in his hands. I am not ok with that.

But more importantly, is there any need of this law? Out of all childbirths in, say, America, how many of the fathers would have used this if they had the chance?

I'm not against it, and I know that women as of today might use/abuse men in this way. However, I've not heard of very many cases like this, so I would assume there's not a great deal who have this problem. Maybe it would work, under very specific cases, but not on a general cause. There would be possible abuse.

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.

Devil's Lawyer incoming.

By accepting this, men might abuse and leave a higher stress level on the average woman. Even with child support, single women with kids have a hard time getting in enough money. If the child-support is removed, it would make it impossible to earn enough for some families. Therefore, you are giving some women a quite hard question: Shall I take an abortion, or should I give birth to this child and give it a horrible youth?

Yes, they may abuse it. But you can't assume they will. And the woman has a third option: Should I give birth and adopt it out to a loving family?

Another problem with this, is a specific part of the quote:

Let me assume your idea is applied. Could a quote like this be a reality?

No, it couldn't. They both hold their own direction, because if the father leaves that doesn't mean the woman HAS to have it. She still has a choice.

But more importantly, is there any need of this law? Out of all childbirths in, say, America, how many of the fathers would have used this if they had the chance?

Well it just means the law is there for those that do need to use it. You're not going to cancel treatment for a rare disease just because not many will need it.

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.

How on Earth does that work? The only way is to force the woman to keep it, and then you're telling her what to do with her body. I don't support that, it's anti-abortionist thinking.

First off, if both of them don't want the child, why would they separate?
And no, if you're in a true relationship, do you think it will be easy for a man to turn his back on the woman when it is pretty much guaranteed it will break them up forever? And the current system HAS that distastefulness, but it is administered by the woman.

Because not wanting the child does not equal prompt abortion. That sure as hell is the case for men: Do not want? Abort mission. Women have it worse. I'm no expert in this but physical health threat, mental traumas are both possible, because, again, the woman is directly ridding off the life form.

And the thing is, if you're in for a true relationship, you can talk it over just fine with the girl. If she shuts you out and make the decision on her own, it isn't very different from you saying "kthxbye" and waltz away with this system. So no, serious relationships are not based on equally fair treatment, but on mutual understanding and reasonable compromise, at least in my opinion.

The current system obviously has its flaw, but as a guy, I find it disgusting for other guys to seek convenience for themselves without considering the situation further than "she also has the choice, well.. same choice as before!"
The flaw lays in the natural fact that pregnancy is a woman's exclusive right, until you can make that fair, nothing can be fair.

Yes, I'm a biased sexist and I believe that gentlemen need to act like gentlemen.

Here's an idea: Don't have sex.

If you get a woman pregnant, sure, you're obligated to help it. It IS your flesh and blood too, afterall. And you'd really put a woman through all that hardship alone? You're all selfish bastards.

whats my name? its on the top left of all my posts..

learn2forum

I died a little inside when I read that.

OT : I think this is perfectly acceptable. Whilst a woman's pregnant, if the man wants to have an abortion but she doesn't, then who do you think's going to win? She's the one carrying the baby, so of course she thinks it's her decision whether to abort or not, which makes it acceptable for a man to walk out, IMO.

I'm against the idea.

The woman actually has to make the choice of whether or not to let their child live. That has its own moral controversy attached to it. The man is just deciding whether or not to know and support the child, so whether or not to provide time and money basically. The child can still live a good live without the fathers support. This also has moral controversy, though not as bad.

Money and life are 2 very different things is basically what I'm saying...

I'm unsure of a better alternative though, I realise that the woman getting all the rights is pretty unfair :/

Because not wanting the child does not equal prompt abortion. That sure as hell is the case for men: Do not want? Abort mission. Women have it worse. I'm no expert in this but physical health threat, mental traumas are both possible, because, again, the woman is directly ridding off the life form.

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?

And the thing is, if you're in for a true relationship, you can talk it over just fine with the girl. If she shuts you out and make the decision on her own, it isn't very different from you saying "kthxbye" and waltz away with this system. So no, serious relationships are not based on equally fair treatment, but on mutual understanding and reasonable compromise, at least in my opinion.

Yes, you can talk it over. I never said you couldn't. Some people look at this idea and think every man is going to start walking out on his pregnant girlfriend, but there are those who will sit down and talk it over, compromise. But if the girl shuts you out and makes the decision on her own, she clearly doesn't take your interests in to consideration. Your relationship is doomed to fail, but you are stuck with 18 years of financial drain because of her stubborness.

The current system obviously has its flaw, but as a guy, I find it disgusting for other guys to seek convenience for themselves without considering the situation further than "she also has the choice, well.. same choice as before!"
The flaw probably lays in the natural fact that pregnancy is a woman's exclusive right, until you can make that fair, nothing can be fair.

When I support this, I know there are true couples out there who will sit down and talk it over. I don't see it as seeking convenience, I see it as a last resort for when compromise and understanding fails. A child at the wrong time can put a stopper in developing careers, it can put you on the bread line. Yes, there will be deadbeats who may abuse the system, but every system does have its flaws. In this system it's trailor-trash Sally, who 'forgets' a few birth control pills so she can trap her boyfriend in to 18 years of paying for her to sit on her ass.

Here's an idea: Don't have sex.

If you get a woman pregnant, sure, you're obligated to help it. It IS your flesh and blood too, afterall. And you'd really put a woman through all that hardship alone? You're all selfish bastards.

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.

If you're gonna have sex and you get a girl pregnant, you should have to pay the consequences. It's not that babies fault their daddy is a douche bag that doesn't want them.

Maybe you should wrap your penis instead of screwing everything with a vagina.

So, Katie, I assume your statement applies when they mother has an abortion, or if she gives the child up for adoption. Of course, I'm going to also point out that it's entirely possible the father isn't financially ready or mentally ready to support a child much like a mother who gives it up for adoption. That isn't to say he doesn't want the child, but he is more concerned with its upbringing than "omg i am gunna owe moniez"

Also, good thing condoms never break.

Here's an idea: Don't have sex.

If you get a woman pregnant, sure, you're obligated to help it. It IS your flesh and blood too, afterall. And you'd really put a woman through all that hardship alone? You're all selfish bastards.

Because Oral and Anal sex lead to pregnancy. Of course, I do hope you realize that aside from Pregnancy (which is a big "aside from" I'll admit) women aren't nearly as obligated to help "it" as men are (I'll go grab sources in a bit). This isn't even counting the numerous cases where paternity fraud is used to rob a man legally.

Money and life are 2 very different things is basically what I'm saying...

I'm unsure of a better alternative though, I realise that the woman getting all the rights is pretty unfair :/

You'd think that, but you do realize that the mother can give it up for adoption right? Hell, even if she misses abortion/doesn't want to have one and adoption she still has (in some states) the Safe Haven law. She drops it off the appropriate location and can walk out and leave its life forever.

Hmmm Cactur, that's a really good point. I'd completely forgotten about that.

I've thought of something else that could be a problem in a system like this though. From my understanding of abortions, the sooner the better to cause minimum pain and suffering for the fetus. What if say a man decided to get the "male abortion" thing in the last few weeks and the woman would have had an abortion if she'd known a lot sooner that he'd do that? You'd need to somehow avoid stuff like that. It would be likely to happen if they had a fight near the end as the reality of the situation was getting closer and closer...

Yes, they may abuse it. But you can't assume they will. And the woman has a third option: Should I give birth and adopt it out to a loving family?

Of course I can assume they will, why can't I? The woman might have a third option, but adoption is sadly not always possible for everyone.

No, it couldn't. They both hold their own direction, because if the father leaves that doesn't mean the woman HAS to have it. She still has a choice.

Good, I agree. For most women, they would still have a choice.

Well it just means the law is there for those that do need to use it. You're not going to cancel treatment for a rare disease just because not many will need it.

But would the law bring more good than bad? Would more abusers use it, than "users"? 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.

How on Earth does that work? The only way is to force the woman to keep it, and then you're telling her what to do with her body. I don't support that, it's anti-abortionist thinking.

Obviously, it doesn't work. But that's the closest to "fair" we can get, from my point of view. and it's sci-fi from hell.

Don't mind weird reasoning, my brain isn't functional today. Is be weird.