Originally Posted by
Wells
Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.
You are talking about after a child is conceived and I am talking about before it is. If there is no child conceived I do not see why a man cannot state that he does not want children and will not support them and not have that legally up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Women would then have the option to either sex with the man knowing that there is a chance she may become pregnant and end up being the sole provider for the child. If she chooses to have sex with the man after knowing that she is agreeing to the terms and conditions. And if an unwanted pregnancy does happen she still has the following options
1. Have the baby and keep it knowing she will be the sole provider.
2. Have the baby and put it up for adoption
3. Abortion (if that is not a non-option for her)
The only thing that changes for the woman is option one and that is only that she would not have the financial backing of a man.
Now when a woman over looks the man's wishes for whatever reason it does violate a man's reproductive rights because he no longer has a choice in with who and when he becomes a father.
How is giving a man the option to "walk away" before a child is even conceived hurts the woman or the child? How?