Should men have the right, for legal-abortion?

[Drakain]

having to pay child support for 18 years isn't exposing them to financial risks?
biological i can agree with, but if a woman knows the man doesn't want to pay then she can do with her body what she wants.

I said same financial risks. I didn't say there was no risk involved. Child support isn't the same economic burden. Apples to oranges.

If child support merely represented half the cost of raising a child then double up on the amount should, in theory, completely satisfy the financial obligations imposed by a child. It doesn't.

[Aqua]

I don't know if 'abortion' is the right term for it, but giving up rights and responsibilities of a child legally... yes there needs to be a due process for this sort of thing.
Women CAN 'rape' men under correct circumstances, or 'get a baby out of him' under false pretenses.

However, if you stuck your dick in it and didn't expect a baby... Willingly and without proper caution. I'm afraid I'm not with you there.
I'm not on women's sides when they do that either. Saying they're on the pill or what have you. It's lying. Plain and simple.

Practice safe sex. Enjoy sex. But EXPECT a damn baby if you both enter into it willingly. That's the whole point of sex sorry to say.
Abortions and Legal Emancipation are necessary if the child isn't going to end up in a happy home. Due to poverty, unwanted, emotional trauma or danger to the parents health, or what have you.
My mother was born into a household where she wasn't wanted. It has therefore HAUNTED her for the rest of her life. I don't want that for any child. Parental responsibility needs more consideration, and if a woman won't back out where the man will... well. That's her call to make.
But consideration needs to be for the parents to make. My own opinions on the matter are clouding this slightly...Moving away from that.


This process has to take place during the time of abortion because after that the woman cannot back out either. Both need the same amount of time to make the call.


OH right...USA. Yeah I don't know that I'd allow that in your country... No government financial support... Leaves women quite venerable.
Bit stickier over there. But in the UK? And other countries that give paid maternal and in some amazing cases paternal leave? Yes.

[Catta]

I see it just as another one of those silly emotion based reasons. Sure, someone has to get the short end, why does it always have to be the man? They already get saved last whenever there's some accident going on. If people can't afford kids, they shouldn't get them. Maybe it would make more poor bimbos think if it's worth to give birth to someone they will raise in some kind of half-assed way.

Because shafting the kid is going to have lasting effect on the future.

[Jackmoves]

Because shafting the kid is going to have lasting effect on the future.

It could be beneficial, a new social class, gutter rats, poor, cheap, uneducated plebs.

[Arcanist]

I don't know if 'abortion' is the right term for it, but giving up rights and responsibilities of a child legally... yes there needs to be a due process for this sort of thing.
Women CAN 'rape' men under correct circumstances, or 'get a baby out of him' under false pretenses.

However, if you stuck your dick in it and didn't expect a baby... Willingly and without proper caution. I'm afraid I'm not with you there.
I'm not on women's sides when they do that either. Saying they're on the pill or what have you. It's lying. Plain and simple.

Practice safe sex. Enjoy sex. But EXPECT a damn baby if you both enter into it willingly. That's the whole point of sex sorry to say.
Abortions and Legal Emancipation are necessary if the child isn't going to end up in a happy home. Due to poverty, unwanted, emotional trauma or danger to the parents health, or what have you.
My mother was born into a household where she wasn't wanted. It has therefore HAUNTED her for the rest of her life. I don't want that for any child. Parental responsibility needs more consideration, and if a woman won't back out where the man will... well. That's her call to make.
But consideration needs to be for the parents to make. My own opinions on the matter are clouding this slightly...Moving away from that.


This process has to take place during the time of abortion because after that the woman cannot back out either. Both need the same amount of time to make the call.


OH right...USA. Yeah I don't know that I'd allow that in your country... No government financial support... Leaves women quite venerable.
Bit stickier over there. But in the UK? And other countries that give paid maternal and in some amazing cases paternal leave? Yes.

Consent to sex and consent to a child are two entirely different things.

[Catta]

Consent to sex and consent to a child are two entirely different things.

But every man goes in, so to speak, knowing a child is a possibility unless they wear a condom and even then its still possible.

[Drakain]

Consent to sex and consent to a child are two entirely different things.

Yeah, but it's an irrelevant distinction for this discussion. Contraception can fail. If you have sex, there's always a risk that it could result in pregnancy unless either your or your partner is biologically unable to produce viable offspring.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

Given the area I come from, if this was a possibility, there'd be a lot of child support that'd cease to exist.

[Arcanist]

But every man goes in, so to speak, knowing a child is a possibility unless they wear a condom and even then its still possible.

The woman knows a child is a possibility as well. And she is free to consent to that child if she so wishes. She is also free to not consent.

The man has no choice.

And here I thought we were all for equality between the sexes?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, but it's an irrelevant distinction for this discussion. Contraception can fail. If you have sex, there's always a risk that it could result in pregnancy unless either your or your partner is biologically unable to produce viable offspring.

They aren't the same thing. People have sex for purposes other than babymaking, right?

[Delekii]

But every man goes in, so to speak, knowing a child is a possibility unless they wear a condom and even then its still possible.

This is like sexism in the opposite manner to what we are used to seeing.

If the man has been "duped" into getting a woman pregnant in any way, the legitimacy of his "responsibility" has to be questioned. Don't get me wrong; if it's just a matter of the guy being an idiot and having unprotected sex with a woman who hasn't said anything different, he absolutely should be held responsible for the child. However, if the woman goes out of her way to deceive him into having a baby, she should take on his responsibilities in the eye of the law.

[Xargoth6634]

No, it's the woman's body. Don't like it? Wrap it up before you tap that.

[Arcanist]

if it's just a matter of the guy being an idiot and having unprotected sex with a woman who hasn't said anything different, he absolutely should be held responsible for the child.

Why?

/10char

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's the woman's body. Don't like it? Wrap it up before you tap that.

Take responsibility for CHOOSING to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Don't like it? Keep your legs closed.

[Drakain]

This is like sexism in the opposite manner to what we are used to seeing.

If the man has been "duped" into getting a woman pregnant in any way, the legitimacy of his "responsibility" has to be questioned. Don't get me wrong; if it's just a matter of the guy being an idiot and having unprotected sex with a woman who hasn't said anything different, he absolutely should be held responsible for the child. However, if the woman goes out of her way to deceive him into having a baby, she should take on his responsibilities in the eye of the law.

That's not the question. The question is whether the "dupe" should have a legal right to unilaterally force that woman to get an abortion against her wishes and I think the answer is he shouldn't.

[Delekii]

Why?

/10char

At the risk of sounding cyclical; because he had unprotected sex with a woman without taking due diligence to ensure he wouldn't create the baby?

A physical abortion is an exercising of the woman's rights to self-management of her own body, in the same way a vasectomy would be for a man.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not the question. The question is whether the "dupe" should have a legal right to unilaterally force that woman to get an abortion against her wishes and I think the answer is he shouldn't.

No, that isn't the question. The original post is about a man who wants to "legally" abort his responsibilities to the baby as a result of being duped into having it; nothing to do with a physical abortion.

[Arcanist]

At the risk of sounding cyclical; because he had unprotected sex with a woman without taking due diligence to ensure he wouldn't create the baby?

A physical abortion is an exercising of the woman's rights to self-management of her own body, in the same way a vasectomy would be for a man.

Where's is the woman's due diligence? She allowed a man to have unprotected sex with her, so she is consenting to a child. She shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion.

[Catta]

The woman knows a child is a possibility as well. And she is free to consent to that child if she so wishes. She is also free to not consent.

The man has no choice.

And here I thought we were all for equality between the sexes?

Difference is that the woman is the one with bodily autonomy and the man cannot interfere with this.

Because in this we are not equal - its the woman carrying the baby and she can choose not to and she can choose to. The man can not and should not be able to decide on that front.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that isn't the question. The original post is about a man who wants to "legally" abort his responsibilities to the baby as a result of being duped into having it; nothing to do with a physical abortion.

How does one decide whether or not he was duped into it?

[Arcanist]

Difference is that the woman is the one with bodily autonomy and the man cannot interfere with this.

Because in this we are not equal - its the woman carrying the baby and she can choose not to and she can choose to. The man can not and should not be able to decide on that front.

Right, but the woman can interfere with the autonomy of an unwilling third party. Sounds fair.

[Delekii]

Where's is the woman's due diligence? She allowed a man to have unprotected sex with her, so she is consenting to a child. She shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion.

This is a ridiculous argument. You cannot have 100% identical rights in a situation where two parties are in no physical way equal. When the woman has an abortion, she is exercising her right to bodily autonomy, which the man has no claim to in the situation, since it isn't his body involved.

There is no possible way to have a universally applicable rule in this case.

How does one decide whether or not he was duped into it?

How do we decide anything legally? Set out laws that define what does and does not constitute such an act, and over time, as precidents are set, adjust those laws so they can best represent the ideals of society.

Right, but the woman can interfere with the autonomy of an unwilling third party. Sounds fair.

If you are talking about the baby, see every single abortion-related thread for the last 5 years. The baby has no bodily autonomy until it is actually a baby, and even if it did, you can't forsake one person's right to bodily autonomy in order to support another. As an analogue, you can't force someone to donate an organ to allow another person to live.

[Zardi]

If a man and a woman want to have a child, but suddenly the woman has regrets, she can unilaterally destroy the unborn child and the man wouldn't be able to do anything. Might be the woman's body, but children are a labor of two people, and the man should at least have some say on what happens to them.

[Drakain]

At the risk of sounding cyclical; because he had unprotected sex with a woman without taking due diligence to ensure he wouldn't create the baby?

A physical abortion is an exercising of the woman's rights to self-management of her own body, in the same way a vasectomy would be for a man.

- - - Updated - - -



No, that isn't the question. The original post is about a man who wants to "legally" abort his responsibilities to the baby as a result of being duped into having it; nothing to do with a physical abortion.

Oh, I see. Well, I don't see a problem with that if he can prove the pregnancy resulted as a consequence of some intentional, bad act on the part of the woman to produce a child with the man. I can tell you that in the American legal system it probably wouldn't be feasible because once the child is born the issue isn't "how the father is burdened" but "what's in the best interest of the child." The fact is that it's never going to be the childs best interest to absolve the father of financial liability. Maybe it'll work in Europe, though.