Men should have a say in their child's abortion

[Anywayysss]

Disclaimer: Okay everyone before you jump to conclusions hear me out, this may be lengthy. In no way am i against abortion, I am just stating how I feel about a Man's rights to his child. Also I would like to apologize for my terrible grammar ahead of time. Also, when it comes to the topic of men raping women and the girl getting pregnant, I would think it would be obvious that person would have no say in that childs past, present, or future. I would just like to clarify that my opinion is only including a situation where a man and a woman have given consent to have sex with eachother.

Now recently in one of my classes we were having a discussion about abortion and it got me thinking about the current laws we have in place about the rights to an unborn child. It's always bothered me about how if a man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant, wether or not it was intentional, the woman gets 100% of the choice to choose whether or not the child gets aborted or not. Now I thought this was unfair.

When it comes to abortion when women want to keep a child and the man doesn't, he doesn't get to say that the child SHOULD be aborted and I agree with that. However if the woman doesn't want the child she has the option to abort it, without having to consult with the father in any way which I think is unfair. If a man is willing and able to take care of a child without the woman, he should be allowed to say no! The child is not just the property of a woman, it's a combination of the man and the woman into another human being, and even if the fetus is still just a fetus, it is still both the man's and the woman's joined and has the potential to grow into a human being.

Some people may argue that its a woman's body and she should have the say in whats going on in her body. In my opinion, if two people decide to have sex, they also agree to all the consequences that go along with it which include things like the possibility of getting pregnant! if a man wants to keep his child he should be allowed to, seeing as how its also his baby. Somethings that could change the way people see this is if he wants to keep his child and the mother doesn't, then he can pay for her medical bills that she needs to keep the baby healthy such as seeing the OB/GYN regularly and getting ultrasounds. If the mother still decides she doesn't want the child at the end of the pregnancy then the custody of the child can go to the father and they will leave it at that.

Another thing that would come up if this were to happen would be if the mother would have to pay child support to the man, just as a father has to pay a single mother if he decides he doesn't want to be apart of the babies life. Now I won't get into this becuase I haven't put much thought into this part of the topic, but so far i would say they should.

In conclusion, If a man and a woman have consensual sex then just as the mother has the right to not have an abortion, then the man should have the same rights. Men have proven themselves capable of taking care of a child and some are great single fathers. If a man is Capable and willing to take care of a baby and raise them by themselves, they should have the option to opt out of their childs abortion so they can take care of THEIR child.

[gotc147]

Since men legally consent to all responsibilities concerning pregnancy and fatherhood simply by having sperm I would say that the BS women go through for 9 months is WAY overblown.

There has been at least one case where a woman gave a man a blowjob, he ejaculated into a condom, then the woman used the sperm inside the condom to impregnate herself, then the man was forced to pay child support. Another case in Michigan recently a man, who was proven by DNA testing to NOT be the father of a child was ordered by a court to pay $30,000 in back child support simply because the mother put his name down as the father.

There is little in the way of rational speaking in the abortion debate. Most pro-choicers are convinced that abortion must be on demand, funded by the taxpayer, available at every street corner, can be done at any point during pregnancy including labor, not even need to inform the father about the pregnancy, let alone abortion itself and in the case of a minor, not obligated to tell the parents.

[gotc147]

Seems at least four women disagree with the idea that men should not be held responsible for children that are 1. not theirs and/or 2. conceived due to theft of their sperm.

Nice to know most women believe it's a good idea for it to be legal to steal a mans sperm and for him to be legally responsible for any children that come of it.

[vickiezalez]

I'm a woman and whole-heartedly agree with you. For one if you are gonna abort your baby it better not be with my money. Pay for it your own damn self. Just like you don't have the right to impose your religion on me, don't impose your lack of funding on me.

[Porcelaine]

No, most pro-choicers are not that deranged lol. But it is sad that most men when tell us they need to have a say in abortion give examples of child support. as if she keeps the baby that is the worst thing that can happen. we are not discussing whether or not an unborn life is ended, but it's always about money for guys. those examples you gave are extreme and won't ever happen to you. women who do that are psychos, so if you choose your girlfriends carefully crazy shit like this won't happen to you

[vickiezalez]

@Porcelaine Some men don't want the fetus terminated. If the man is willing to take care of it, will a woman be really be that selfish and prefer to keep her tight pristine body even though the man is not asking for anything but just have the baby in return?

[Porcelaine]

@vickiezalez not all pro choicers terminate the pregnancy because they want a tight body lol

[vickiezalez]

@Porcelaine Whatever the reason, I don't want to pay for their abortion. I don't agree with it, so taking my tax dollars to pay for their abortion is equal to something being imposed on me.

[Porcelaine]

@vickiezalez if you take a good look on what tax dollars are spent you wouldn't agree with a lot of it, but most of it is necessary. Abortion sometimes is necessary too, whether you are pro choice or against

[BrookieCookie0422]

@Porcelaine in what cases is abortion necessary?

[xyz94]

@BrookieCookie0422 "I would say that the BS women go through for 9 months is WAY overblown." Wow - the "BS" you talk of is a human being growing inside of you, with all of the potential complications - for your own health and the baby's - that this carries, followed by childbirth itself, which can be very dangerous. Not to mention raising the child - it's always the woman left holding the baby, as the saying goes.

[vickiezalez]

@Porcelaine That's like a religious priest telling me that my tax dollars are necessary to build a church. Puh-lease girl, get your own money. You spread your legs, own up to it if you're not gonna have the child at least cough up the money to terminate the baby. Don't expect us to pay for you messing up.

[gotc147]

@xyz94 You chose to open your legs knowing the potential results, live with your choices.

[mistixs]

@vickiezalez "the man is not asking for anything but just have the baby in return" as per the cost of surrogacy, pregnancy has an objective value of $50,000. So he's expecting her to contribute $50,000 worth of value, for him, for free.

Either be against abortion & obligate both man and woman to contribute equally to the pregnancy process ($50,000 worth of value), or let it be the woman's choice.

[vickiezalez]

@mistixs and you think some men wouldn't? Are you generalizing men?

I still don't want my tax dollars to contribute to abortion just like i dont like them to be contributed to the upkeep for ANY (be it christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu) religious organization.

[xyz94]

@gotc147 (1) I don't sleep around, but that's irrelevant to this question anyway (2) Women should not be forced to go through a pregnancy just because they have decided to have sex - that is their free choice to make in our society, you know!

[mistixs]

@vickiezalez some men would, but many men wouldn't, just like many women wouldn't keep their pregnancies.
If the law can dictate that the woman be responsible for the pregnancy, it can also dictate that the man likewise be responsible for the pregnancy

[Prettykangaroos]

I've read through the comments, and I know I'm going to get down votes for what I'm about to say, but here it goes.

Letting the father be able to legally force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want will just make it more likely for a woman to lie and go behind his back to abort a child instead of coming to a mutual decision with him.

No one should legally be able to force ANYONE to do ANYTHING to their body that they don't want.

I understand the unfairness to men here, but I think this solution just turns the tables.

Don't complain about having to pay child support for a child you don't want if you're going to argue that a woman should have to carry a child she doesn't want. You think we can't have our cake and eat it too? Then neither can you.

[Prettykangaroos]

I think that if we turned the tables and the man was carrying the baby and the woman wasn't, men would raise hell if women had the final say in what happened to their own body.

[gotc147]

I'd be ok with turning the tables legally for a couple generations.

As for your having and eating cake metaphor, please see my answer.

[thelanatellama]

I feel that the woman should have most of the power in this situation but that, yes, the father should be able to have a choice also. Although I don't know how a system other than the one in place would work

[inamorata]

But we can ALREADY have our cake and eat it too. Men can't.
Take Owner is just asking for the same privilege.

[ThisGuy42]

I would love to carry a child! And if I accidentally got pregnant (which wouldn't happen because I'm not a dumbass) But I would except responsibility for my mistake and carry the child. Honestly the only time I think abortion is acceptable is if your raped. Or if you are poor and don't have enough money to support it. In any other situation it shouldn't be a choice. Its your fault your pregnant. That do

[ThisGuy42]

That doesn't give you the right to take its life.

[Prettykangaroos]

@thisguy42 being poor is basically the biggest reason why people abort. This falls under the category of teen moms, college students, women who are just starting out. Of course most people would love to carry a chance child when they are financially ready to take that on. But usually that's not until we're settles in a good job and we'll into our 20s. That's not the demographic of women who usually abort. You shouldn't judge other people based on their choices when you don't fully know their life circumstances.

[Screenwriter]

@ThisGuy42 Birth control methods fail. Most women who become pregnant unplanned were using birth control. So don't say people are stupid who got pregnant. Condoms are 80% effective alone. IUDs are 95. Implants and pills 99.9. But this is all with perfect use. Few use these methods perfectly. IUDs can be knocked out of place. A woman can miss a pill. Medicines can effect pill efficacy. It would be interesting to see how men handle being the bearer of children. I hated being pregnant and I planned my pregnancy. I only did it once. Very glad I did. Love my son. He's a good young man. I cannot fathom what it would be like to have a pregnancy I didn't want. To feel desperate and conflicted about having a child. Being pregnant wreaks havoc on your body: high blood pressure, diabetes of pregnancy, premature births, still borns.. My mom had a stillborn and my friend two miscarriages. So don't pooh pooh the dangers of pregnancy. They exist. The baby carrier gets the choice. It's not fair, but it's equitable.

[MilkiiStrawberriis]

I don't think this take is about forcing you to bear the child, it's about men having a say in the child's' future as well.
You have the cake of controlling the child's life and future, but you're only half of what brought the child here. The author I assume is talking about having control as well, it takes two to tango.

[pr3ttybr0wn]

so a woman should have to carry a baby for 9 months and go through labor she doesn't want because the guy says he will take care of it? women aren't incubators. I know it isn't "fair" that men can't control childbirth, but you don't have a ovaries and a womb so that's something you just don't have any control over. besides, what is to stop a woman from telling the guy who tries to force her to carry a child to term "well it isn't your baby anyway, I cheated"? once paternity is called into question then how could he make her carry the child?

im sorry but men just need to get over it. you can't carry a child so you have no right to determine if she has it or not. I know its not "fair" but that's why you need to have conversations about whether you want kids BEFORE you have sex, and only sleep with women who feel the same way as you do. ask those important questions first and don't go any further with a woman whose stance on abortions and childbirth is different than yours. that's the only thing you really can do because no court is gonna give a man the right to a womans body

[kheserthorpe]

Agree with the first paragraph. and the unfortunate first part of the conclusion.

As for 'having conversations', you might as well, but tbh, they're pretty meaningless. People change their mind about abortion when actually pregnant all the time, so the conversations can give you some idea of what she might do, but i'd consider it only 60% likely she'd follow through.

[ComDom]

Wrong! Women ARE incubators. They might not be just incubators but they are without a doubt incubators. That is a scientific fact.

The ONLY way society can get away with abortion is if they can convince people that abortion is not murder.

Also men don't HAVE to do anything. Men choose to act a certain way and women do the same. The people in power make laws and punish those who don't follow along. You not accepting facts doesn't make them not true.

[jacquesvol]

@ComDom
Women are human beings and whatever their body may be able to do, men have no right to demand it.

[ComDom]

@jacquesvol It's not that simple. It is no longer only their body when they become pregnant BECAUSE women ARE incubators. You aren't arguing with me. You're arguing with science.

"Women are human beings and whatever their body may be able to do, men have no right to demand it."

What "murder" is and when life begin is not up to me or you legally. It's up to the masses who ultimately determine the laws. But to pretend that it is a 'natural right' for women to willingly kill their own unborn child is bullshit. Morality IS subjective. It always has been and it probably always will be. Protecting innocent life is worth living and dying for. If people don't stand up for something as basic as that. Why live at all?

[jacquesvol]

@ComDom
It's STILL THEIR body and they OWN their body. Nobody else. Your body can be an incubator too, for parasites and bacteries , and they're alive too.

[jacquesvol]

@ComDom
But to pretend that it is a 'natural right' for men to decide what men want to happen with their 'own' sperm is bullshit. Morality IS subjective.

[ComDom]

"It's STILL THEIR body and they OWN their body. Nobody else. Your body can be an incubator too, for parasites and bacteries , and they're alive too."

It isn't ONLY their body. You should pay more attention. If they have conceived a child then it is a human being. ALL of us went through that process or we wouldn't be here. You can pretend it isn't true but you're deluding yourself. If someone had aborted you then you wouldn't be here. Basic logic.

"But to pretend that it is a 'natural right' for men to decide what men want to happen with their 'own' sperm is bullshit. Morality IS subjective."

It isn't the sperm that's the problem. Sperm is no longer only sperm after conception. That isn't debatable. Gestation takes place at the moment of conception. That's a fact. The more you talk the more it becomes obvious abortion is murder. So thank you for helping me realize that.

[ComDom]

@jacquesvol in case you can't see what I said. I responded to you above^

[jacquesvol]

@ComDom "The more you talk the more it becomes obvious abortion is murder." NOT.
Murder concerns a human being, not the pea sized lump of cells existing at the moment of legal abortion. Living cells? Yes, just like a cancer or a parasite are living cells.

[jacquesvol]

@ComDom
" If someone had aborted you then you wouldn't be here. Basic logic."
If nature (your god?) had aborted me through a miscarriage then I wouldn't be here. Basic logic.
Nature (your god?) is the most active 'abortionist' there is: about 30% of all impregnations fail to lead to pregnancy, due to early miscarriages.
If my dad had used a condom then I wouldn't be here. Basic logic.
No big deal, all of these.

[ComDom]

"Murder concerns a human being, not the pea sized lump of cells existing at the moment of legal abortion. Living cells? Yes, just like a cancer or a parasite are living cells."

@jacquesvol Where do you think you came from? How can you possibly be so dense? At WORST a fetus is pre-human. At best it IS human. That is not debatable. Parasites and bacteria do NOT equal fetus. This is biology 101.

Lol no shit if he had used a condom or a miscarriage happened you wouldn't be here. A condom prevents conception (the beginning of life). A miscarriage is death by natural causes. Abortion is KILLING an unborn child. How can you be missing logic so completely? Where is the rationality? Where is the sensibility?

[MaskedSanity]

Oh boo hoo, my heart bleeds for men's inability to control what women do with their bodies.

Tell you what, if you want to have a say in keeping or aborting a baby, you go ahead and invent a way to transplant that fetus into your own body and bring the child to term.

Once you've made that possible, then we can have this discussion. Before then, I give ZERO fucks how unfair you may think this is.

YOU don't have to go through hormonal changes, YOU don't vomit for weeks to months for no reason, YOU don't gain a fuckton of weight, YOU don't go through excruciating pain that is childbirth and YOU are not at risk of dying IN childbirth, also YOU don't go into postnatal depression.

In the scenario of child conceiving you are a sperm donor, while the woman is an incubator for 9 months.

After all the bullshit women have to deal with after conception you have the NERVE and AUDACITY to cry about unfairness? Are you for real?

Nature dealt women the shittiest hand out of the two sexes and you think not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies is "unfair"?

The only thing unfair about conception in today's world is forcing guys to pay child support, if he never wanted to conceive and/or keep the child. If a guy denounces his parenthood, it should be the woman's job to pay for everything, because only one party agreed to keep it.

Other than that, cry me a bloody river.

[KleinTeef]

Well if we have no say in the abortion... we shouldn't have to deal with a kid we don't want :)

by the way, why is it that every time I see you write a response you sound really, really angry?

[MaskedSanity]

@KleinTeef

Err, that's exactly what I said: if a guy didn't want to keep the child, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support. :B

It just appears that way, because I swear a lot and have a confrontational approach to discussions. I'm not really angry and am rather light-hearted in person. But I still swear like a sailor IRL. :p

[gotc147]

Except legally, men are responsible for the child no matter what.

In fact a Michigan man was recently order to pay $30,000 in back child support, FOR A KID THAT ISN'T EVEN HIS.

You have the nerve to complain about women being dealt a bad hand, yet men have to live on half their salaries for 18 years, it isn't nearly as "unfair" as you make it sound.

[MaskedSanity]

@gotc147

Read again, I said NATURE dealt women a bad hand, not society.

And where exactly did I say that men paying for kids they don't want or aren't even theirs is a-ok?

This is what you should be fighting for. Instead of telling women what to do with their bodies you should be fighting the unjust laws that are in place.

How is taking away women's right to their own bodies going to solve the problem of the unfair justice system?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Kiss the olden days goodbye and accept the fact that you have zero rights to a woman's body. And if we're gonna be using the poor excuse of societal unfairness, you might want to reflect on the entire history of humanity and how women had very few rights to their own lives since the dawn if time.

But again, two wrongs don't make a right. Get that through your head.

[gotc147]

You think that fight isn't being fought? It gets zero press coverage and is actively suppressed by feminist groups, probably who you support.

[inamorata]

I disagree.

I'm pro choice, but I would still make changes.
Here's how I'd arrange it...

If either one of them wants that fetus dead at all cost, the fetus dies. No births can take place without mutual consent that said birth is allowed.
If a woman can pull the plug on the fetus because it's her body, the man gets the same right. (But he can't get the right to force her to give birth.)

If either one of them wants that fetus to be a baby, but the other one doesn't want to have anything to do with it, yet they allow childbirth to happen... The parent who wants the baby gets ALL the burden and rights of raising it, while the parent who merely allowed the birth, gets NO rights and NO responsibilities.

If a woman hides being pregnant and now she can't abort, all freedom of choice about that child's destiny after birth falls to the father. He chooses whether to be involved at all and whether to pay for it. If fit, he gets automatic custody if he wants it.

If both want the kid to live, yet neither wants to take care of it, it goes into a foster home, or up for adoption. (standard)

If both want it born and want to raise it, duke it out in court like a divorcing family. Let the better potential parent win. The loser chooses whether to and how to pay child support.

Human embryo is not precious to me. We experiment on those. We eat much more complex organisms every day.
The potential to be human doesn't make it holy in my eyes. The decision that it has become human does. And where I live, that decision is made past the 2 month mark.

[Longblackveil]

You think that if the father wants an abortion but the mother doesn't, then the fathers choice should override the mothers? a forced abortion? That's much worse than a forced birth

[inamorata]

@Longblackveil No it's not worse.
And for one simple and basic difference in perspective between me and the Take Owner. I treat the embryo as a pile of cells with potential to be human. I have more compassion for a chicken walking around and plucking than I do for an embryo.
Not because I hate children, or because I want less people, or some sociopathic crap like that.
Merely because I see sanctity of human life there to uphold human society. And someone's life become holy to other humans when we decide that's a human.

And since the embryo is basically a parasite in the uterus of an already acknowledged human - its mother, she needs to be allowed a window of opportunity to decide whether that embryo will become a human and whether she wants to sacrifice her energy, time, looks and health to make it happen.

Once we acknowledge it as a baby, yes she becomes a killer.
Before that, killing that little spec of gooey cells is no more murder than eating chicken.

[inamorata]

Since she has the right to kill without him being asked if he agrees, he should have the same right.
Since killing an embryo is NOT about "her body her choice", since her body will hardly be affected by the abortion, ability to kill it falls equally on both.

The only remaining argument is: her feelings. (and you'd be surprised how easy that can be used)
In that case I must tell you to shove it. Her feelings are not enough because, a potential father, who now wants the baby killed, will be impacted by it for life.

But like I already stated before, in case she forces the baby's birth despite his demanding of abortion (which she could do easily), he gets ALL the rights and demands in terms of how he gets to treat said baby, whether to even take it from her. I'd even go so far, as to let him make her lawfully obligated to keep the identity of the father in secret.

[Longblackveil]

You say "shove it" to her feelings because of your (wrong) assumptions. A forced abortion wouldn't be hard on you because of your beliefs. But an abortion is hard on many others emotionally and to discount that and just say shove it is pretty inconsiderate. To force a woman to have an abortion IS much worse than to force a woman to have the child that she is supposed o be responsible for in the first place.

An unborn child has human DNa from the very start so it is undeniably human, and is very much alive from the start. It is a parasitic relationship, but that's not really relevant, many are living because of machines that breathe for them, are they not alive? The complexity of the unborn child is also irrelevant, I'd like to hear your arguments on exactly HOW it is relevant.

I just think your beliefs are careless and are a substitute for responsibility and empathy.

[inamorata]

"To force a woman to have an abortion IS much worse than to force a woman to have the child that she is supposed o be responsible for in the first place."

No she is not "supposed to be" responsible for it. If the child is born, it will impact this world, not just her. And she can decide to remove herself from it. Supposed to be? Who decided that? You?

I am not suggesting to hold her down and scrape the baby out of her.
I am saying make her legally obligated to abort. If she REFUSES to do so and doesn't abort, she LOSES ALL rights and they automatically fall in the hands of the father.

"An unborn child has human DNa from the very start so it is undeniably human, and is very much alive from the start."
Sanctity of human life has nothing to do with human DNA, but human beings as individual units of said society given rights by human society in order to be protected and to protect the society.
DNA doesn't make a human. WE do.

[Longblackveil]

A woman is responsible for her child born or unborn because she made the decision to create that baby. It's kind of obvious isn't it

[Longblackveil]

Ok, it has human DNa but it's not human? How does that make sense?

No, WE do not make humans. Humans existed before society so that argument doesn't make sense.

Your proposal makes a little more sense now that you say that she doesn't actually have to abort it, but something tells me that's not what you originally meant

[Izzy2102]

@Longblackveil I think this is a very interesting answer. It's basically the reverse of what he said. I wonder if the take owner had phrased it like this if all the guys would still be so happy about it?

And I'm actually not sure a forced abortion is worse or a forced birth. I think both are pretty terrible. Which, among other, why I think either version sucks

[inamorata]

"Ok, it has human DNa but it's not human? How does that make sense? "
A human liver has human DNA, but it's not human.
That's how.
We decide what human is, not presence of DNA. We decide that an individual is "the human" and the liver is "part of said human", despite both having human DNA.

"Humans existed before society so that argument doesn't make sense."
When I say society, I mean "social species". We are one, so no human existed before "society". I'm sorry for misexpressing and using the word society, but grasping for that is grasping for straws.

[inamorata]

@Izzy2102
If you look from a perspective of "human begins at conception" then Take Owner's version is best.
If you look from a perspective of "human begins when we agree it does and the woman has the right to choose what happens to her body" then my version is the best.

What is your perspective?

@Longblackveil I'm sorry for forgetting to tag you before.

[Longblackveil]

But a liver isn't alive therefore it can't be human. The unborn child is certainly alive, no one can argue against that. A liver is just an organ, an unborn child is an organism that has its own distinct DNa.

Humans as a whole will never agree on a definition for what is human and what isn't, surely you know that? So that's a bad way to define something, but then again what other way is there?

And how can you say your proposal is better for people who believe that a woman has the right to control over here body when you state in your proposal that the man has the right to decide unilateralally that she has to have an abortion by law?

[inamorata]

"But a liver isn't alive therefore it can't be human. The unborn child is certainly alive, no one can argue against that."
Liver is not alive? What the hell do you think liver is? What do you think life is?
An embryo is no more or less human like than liver is.

"And how can you say your proposal is better for people who believe that a woman has the right to control over here body when you state in your proposal that the man has the right to decide unilateralally that she has to have an abortion by law?"
I already explained.
Abortion will hardly affect her body. This slight change that quickly passes in a day or two is not an excuse for "her body her choice". In terms of childbirth, hell yes it's about "her body her choice." In terms of abortion... No way.
The father should get EQUAL rights to kill the embryo, because he wouldn't be getting the right to severely impact her body by force. In terms of abortion she's just a container, not the primary owner of the embryo.

[inamorata]

"Humans as a whole will never agree on a definition for what is human and what isn't, surely you know that? "
If it has human rights, if we consider it a part of human society and apply our laws to it regarding humans, it's a human (or a part of our society that we treat as a human in case the definition expands to robots, in the future).

[jacquesvol]

@inamorata
"The loser chooses whether to and how to pay child support."
No: child support is paid for the born child, not for the mother. Thus no choice. The judge decides it.

[inamorata]

@jacquesvol I guess that makes sense as well.

[StopLookingAtMe]

Your opinion is that sex should have consequences. If a man feels that a one time event should be binding, it means that the woman will be forced to deal with stigma and the better part of a year, followed by crippling costs and permanent limitations to career growth.

Should a prospective father pay restitution for these lost opportunities? The complications? What if they never planned for any of that? An unplanned pregnancy is just that - unplanned. By surrendering the woman's power of choice to external forces, you punish her for choosing to have sex and, should contraception fail, triggering an unstoppable biological process.

Gay couples successfully have children through surrogacy - essentially contracting someone who can help them with the biological component of having children. Perhaps that would make a solution for single men who desire kids.

As for making those choices, there are already men who have that job, and they are paid by the public. Their job titles usually contain words like senator, governor, representative, or justice.

[Izzy2102]

The problem with a two people democracy is what do they do if they disagree, that isn't unfair to one person? Seriously tell me? Because your post is just making it unfair in different scenarios.

You basically say that the baby can't be aborted if one parent wants it. That's not any more or less fair. It's just different
And problematic, because fatherhood isn't as obvious. For a father to insist that she carries the child until birth he'd first have to prove that he is in fact the father. There are pre natal test, but they're risky and you can't make someone do it (although in your world if you force someone to be pregnant with a child they don't want, maybe you can also force them to have that test?). If she doesn't want the child she might just not tell him. And if you suggest you need both peoples consent then what do you do with potential fathers who are nowhere to be found?
What if he forces her to have to baby and once it's born, it turns out it's not his? Can she file for damages? And what about him in general? Because legally he has no responsibility for a child that is not his, so she's stuck with it?
What about rape?
What if he wants it but she wants an abortion because he is abusive? Or the other way around? How do you deal with that? Surley you'd agree that there some circumstances where a woman should be able to get an abortion without his consent, but who says what's a valid one and what isn't? A court? Do you know how long that takes? How much it costs?

[Izzy2102]

I kinda wonder why people disagreed but didn't bother to answer any of the questions I asked

[zorro8888]

He did mention rape in the introduction among other scenarios where the rule would not apply. As for paternity testing, there are ways of finding out before the baby is even born now... not to say it's not more expensive but it is still possible. As for you bringing up a court, I think it's clear in this day and age the legal system is unfair to men in these scenarios.
What about a girl who goes through the pregnancy without considering anything about the father and expects child support? Should he not be cleared of that?

You're looking to say what he's saying is unfair while at the same time you're only looking to give women the upper hand.

As for the people disagreeing with you I'm sure they just disagree with your opinion. I don't care enough to downvote you but I won't upvote your comment either.

[zorro8888]

Also if he holds no say in the matter then he should be able to remove all responsibilities of himself.
That's the closest way to making all of this fair.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 I don't state an opinion though, that's the point. I just ask a bunch of questions.

He said rape as an exception, but it's actually legally not that easy. Even a rapist has parental rights, you can't just take them away completely. Paternity and conception are legally separate, as they should be. But ok that answers one out of 20 or so that I asked? The point was who decides what's a valid reason and what is not?
And yes I said there were test you can do before birth, but that is an invasive procedure. The cost isn't the issue it's the risk. Which is high enough that doctors don't recommend it. So not only might you force a woman to be pregnant for 9 months you're now also forcing her to undergo a procedure to puts her and the baby at a risk, just to find out if the guy who is forcing her to carry the child can actually legally do it. Also prenatal tests as of now are not valid in a court and that's because they're less reliable So that's another thing

[Izzy2102]

And yes it's still unfair. His whole point is about making it fair, yet once they disagree, one party is still fucked

[zorro8888]

Well by answering a couple of your questions it actually negated a lot of the following questions.

For example when you said "What if he forces her to have to baby and once it's born, it turns out it's not his? Can she file for damages? And what about him in general? Because legally he has no responsibility for a child that is not his, so she's stuck with it?"

I said the legal system is more than likely going to be on the women's side therefore it answered all of those questions and like I mentioned earlier the newer paternity testing have advanced since the last time you researched it... If you look up Non Invasive Prenatal Testing, you can see that just by taking the mother's blood they can single out the baby's blood too since it runs through her stream on top of all of that they can even go as far as testing for chromosomal imbalances if they wanted to see chances of birth defects etc...

In cases of rape it becomes that much easier because the man has violated her rights and body

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 for non invasive testing you need to be at least 10 -15 weeks pregnant and then it takes a week to 10 days to get the result. So they're basically useless here because some states countries impose limits on how long you can get an abortion (and I think there should be) usually that limit is within the first trimester or 12 weeks into the pregnancy in Europe . For the U. S. it's more around 20 weeks.
The other part of that is that the kind of abortion you can get, get considerably more invasive and risky as you get along.
And as I said, blood test done pre natal are less reliable. What if they're wrong and he makes her have it? What if they don't get one?

You can't just say courts favor women, which answers all my questions. LOL. The problem is a law like that would reach into a variety of different laws regarding custody, parenthood, abortion, conception, child welfare... which are traditionally kept separate (for a reason)

[Izzy2102]

And no not everyone thinks a rapist doesn't get any rights. In many states a rapist gets joint custody or at least visitation right, how is that any different to this?

[zorro8888]

Actually the tests are available at 9 weeks it's just that most doctors tend to wait for 10 weeks and if you bother paying extra, you can get your results back extremely fast. Which would still be within the first trimester regardless of whether you live in Europe or not.
Prenatal blood test are 99.9% accurate which is as good as it will get with any DNA test whether the child is born or not. You're jumping into hypothetical situations... we're talking about a girl who knows she's pregnant and has told the father and he wants a test within the time frame.

Unless the mother is unfit she to be a parent then she will always retain custody so that answers parenthood as well. Abortion as of now is still decided by women and men have no say... which is the point of this take. As for child wealthfare... if the father is forced to pay for alimony which pretty much always happens then he will have to pay money which would go towards child wealthfare (health, food, shelter school etc...)

[zorro8888]

The only place a rapist gets those rights are in third world countries where the family forces a marriage in order to not be ashamed in public eye.

If this happened in the US it's because the mother did not fight this in court. If she had no jury would agree to the rapist's cause.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 they wait 10 weeks because that's usually as long as it take to define paternity through the mothers blood. And bending the rules isn't a good suggestion for a rule. I mean did that sound like a good law in your head? NO! you get the test at 10 weeks, if you get lucky you have a valid result at 11 weeks. which leaves you with 1 week to make the possibly biggest decision of your life

And it's not 99.9%. They say over 99% whatever that means but I wouldn't assume much more than 99%.

Well ya of course it's a hypothetical scenario, because such a law doesn't exist, so everything we talk about is hypothetical.
And that's the point there are lot of scenarios to consider when you suggest a law like that, because frankly abortions and paternity are not easy or fair subjects. There is no fairness where nature deals two inherently unequal cards

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to in the second paragraph of your first comment? Seriously?

[Izzy2102]

"The only place a rapist gets those rights are in third world countries" oh ya? tell that to the 31 US states that do allow it. So far there are only 8 states that explicitly end paternity rights if the father raped the mother
www.economist.com/.../21607887-when-alleged-rapists-sue-parental-rights-question-proof
www.thewire.com/.../
www.sott.net/.../261445-Majority-of-US-states-allow-rapists-to-have-parental-rights-over-children

[zorro8888]

I didn't mention bending the rules... I simply stated a fact. If they choose to do it at 10 weeks and have a week to left to either go with the abortion or not that's up to them. Just because you're waiting to find out a result doesn't mean you have to wait to make a decision. They had since the moment she found out she was pregnant to start thinking about the biggest decision of their lives.

As for you saying it's 99% that's simply based on a differentiation of sources. It doesn't matter what the real number is... it's clear that we can tell 99 percent is pretty definitive.

As for you not understanding what I wrote earlier you stated

"You can't just say courts favor women, which answers all my questions. LOL. The problem is a law like that would reach into a variety of different laws regarding custody, parenthood, abortion, conception, child welfare... which are traditionally kept separate (for a reason)"

My answer in the second paragraph countered those points.

[Izzy2102]

paying extra to get the results faster IS bending the rules. And so is waiting shorter than the recommended time.
The moment she found out she was pregnant might not have only been the day before they got the test. 3 months isn't a long time. Many women find out after 3 months they're pregnant. It IS a time sensitive issue

But your second paragraph you refer to current laws, not to what he is suggestion. How does that make any sense? Furthermore I didn't ask about the standard issue. Specifically I asked "What if he forces her to have to baby and once it's born, it turns out it's not his? Can she file for damages? And what about him in general? Because legally he has no responsibility for a child that is not his, so she's stuck with it?"

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888

[zorro8888]

That's not bending the rule at all... it's an actual service provided. If you want to receive it faster than you pay extra... I'm pretty sure a lot of people know this, it's how they make extra money.

This is already a hypothetical scenario and you're adding extra things to fit your point... the thing is, just like people find out late, others find out early. In this hypothetical scenario let's at least say she found out before 10 weeks... is that okay with you?

The asker had his own vision on the matter, he can speak for it if he so chooses... as for me I'll stay in the now since it's more factual.

"What if he forces her to have to baby and once it's born, it turns out it's not his?"
I answered that by bringing up the paternity testing... which negates the following questions you asked.

"Can she file for damages? And what about him in general? Because legally he has no responsibility for a child that is not his, so she's stuck with it?"

The testing gets rid of all of those questions.

[zorro8888]

Surely you can see that.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 No it's not okay. You can't think of the best case scenario when making a law, you think of the worst case one and see if it's still ok

"The testing gets rid of all of those questions." No it doesn't. Again what if the test is wrong or they don't get one.

And don't forget about the rape thing now. how is it different from the 31 one states that do allow rapist visitation rights?

[zorro8888]

Yes, it is okay because the testing you is 99% accurate then you're way less likely to have inaccuracy. If you can find me the rate of cases that were wrong from a recognizable sources then I'd gladly switch to your scenario. Also I'm not making a law... I just want women to see it's not their sole decision to kill or carry a baby.

Once again show me a case where the rapist was granted visitation rights or custody then we can bring up that case... also I'd like to see for a fact that the mother fought against it in court and lost.

If not then we can continue on the path I set. I'm trying to be fair to everyone while you on the other hand are consistently trying to give women the upper hand in your scenarios.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 I was referring to when she finds out she's pregnant. You don't go with the best case scenario, you go with the worst one!

I already linked one case where the rapist got visitation rights, but here's another one
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/21/60457.htm
www.christianpost.com/.../

Take owner IS proposing a law though so i thought that is what we are discussing. I think everyone understands that men are part of it too.
It's just as I said a two people democracy, what happens when they disagree? And do you really think having the father make the choice of whether or not to get an abortion is more fair here?
And then there's the question if it even should be a democracy, because as I also said before, nature deals us unfair cards here

[zorro8888]

You choosing to go with the best case scenario is just a way to add to your point... I'm picking a normal and regular setting which apparently you can't argue against...

According to your link 32,000 women get impregnated by rapist and only 16,000 go through with it. Out of those 16,000 they have to live within one of those 31 states which once again lowers the risk exponentially.
Also we can lower it even more if you think about the likelihood of a rapist claiming parental rights. So out of the 300 million people living in the US... you're trying to bring up the likelihood of a rapist doing such a thing.
By the way the chances of a woman going through with the pregnancy after rape 0.00005333333% when compared to the national population.

So if we want to bring up unrealistic scenarios... we might as well talk about an asteroid hitting the planet within those 10 weeks.

[zorro8888]

Nature dealt no unfair cards... in case you haven't noticed, abortion is not natural. Just like contraception is not natural.
So if you're willing to go through a pregnancy then the man should have just as much right to remove his parental responsibilities. Also if you choose to terminate the pregnancy then you should buy yourself out of your parental responsibilities and pay a fee.

I already said if the take owner wants to talk about his law he can talk to you directly.

[zorro8888]

Also as for the rapist custody law... there is a bill on the floor attempting to get rid of it. I sincerely doubt that will be around for long.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888
No! I'm going with the worst case scenario because that's what you have to think of when making a law. A law that is ok for most people but miserable and unfair for a few is a bad law. There just are a lot of things to consider. Best Case scenario, they both agree. We don't need laws for best case scenario, laws are made for all the other ones.
And you agree with him, I assume? Or what was the point of you commenting

Point is, it's legally completely valid for a rapist to claim paternity rights. Where's the difference here. The take owner said it was obvious, but it's not !

"abortion is not natural. Just like contraception is not natural. " So? That doesn't change the fact that we end up inequality? Abortion isn't equal and neither is birth control BECAUSE nature dealt us different cards. I thought that was implied

[zorro8888]

Actually if you look at any law... it's extremely broad because they don't care about worst case scenarios... if its broad enough then they can go case by case. Therefore it would always be fair as every case is ruled differently based on circumstances.
Your assumption is incorrect.

The take owner made it really clear, you're reading way too much into his words to look for a counterargument and it's failing. Which is exactly why you're making up new scenarios.

Yes, nature dealt us different hands... as in women get pregnant and men have to impregnate. However humans changed the rules and made thing difficult by bringing in abortion... which is clearly not a natural card being given... anyone could see that, I'm not sure how it is you're missing the point.

[zorro8888]

If you want to quote what I'm saying you might as well give your opinion on what I originally said...

"So if you're willing to go through a pregnancy then the man should have just as much right to remove his parental responsibilities. Also if you choose to terminate the pregnancy then you should buy yourself out of your parental responsibilities and pay a fee. "

That's clearly a fair point but you chose to ignore it.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 How does it matter if abortion is natural or not? They're still not equal roles now are they?

Laws aren't that broad. Some are, some aren't. Most deal with quite a few scenarios and where they don't, that's usually because the topic is easy. Criminal law in general is fairly broad because things are fairly black and white. civil law on the other hand is far more complex

I think your argument is failing, you've basically been disproved in every point you made

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 and no that's not fair at all. What you're saying there is that the decision to have an abortion is equal to the decision to not pay child support.

Actually now that I read it again it's completely ridiculous. If she chooses to keep it, he can still leave and if she chooses to abort she has to pay a fine? Ya right

[zorro8888]

You brought up nature dealing different cards... do you not remember? That was the only reason I mentioned that nature has nothing to do with abortion...

Yes, laws are that broad... also we're already talking a law hypothetical law in the making so I think we can "hypothetically" say it will be broad.

You haven't disproved a single point I've made... you ignore the fact that I make a good point and make another hypothetical scenario. That's all you've been doing.
Please feel free to show me the countless times I've been disproved.

[zorro8888]

If I mentioned it being fair then it would be completely fair.

I'm saying ultimately we can't make her do anything but in the case of the father wanting to keep the baby and her wanting an abortion then she'd pay a fine to remove parental responsibilities and can go through the abortion.

In the case of her wanting to keep the baby then the dad would pay a fine to remove his if he was against it... since it's only natural that it took 2 people to conceive under given consent.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 nature gave us different card. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Which makes abortion unequal. How does that not get to you? If we at some point get to the stage where men can get pregnant, then we can talk
but in the meantime how do you propose to achieve equality there?

Because it's a complicated issue that he is proposing. Current law is simple. She makes the decision. What he is proposing is not. You have a lot to consider there. So it's valid to think of different cases

[zorro8888]

Right... because men have absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy. Please explain how she got pregnant than... both people have just as much say with what happens.

You keep bringing up the Take owner when I clearly don't care less and I've told you multiple times that if he wants to argue his point then he will.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 I never said he had nothing to do with it, but clearly being pregnant and not being pregnant are not the same thing, right?

Well you commented on this take. You never answered my question. What was the point of your comment then?

[zorro8888]

Seeing how in any normal relationship the guy will go out of his way to make sure she's comfortable for 9 months I think it's safe to say men put a lot in pregnancy... as for pushing it out... Congrats!! What do you want me to do about that?

I answered all of your questions.
Go ahead tell me which one I didn't answer.. I'm all ears.

[Izzy2102]

@zorro8888 I'd agree, if the pregnancy was planned. But we'd hardly be discussing abortion if it was. For couples where it wasn't planned I don't think the guy is always that supporting. Or as I said in my answer he might be gone before he even knows she's pregnant
I think the decision to have an abortion is far harder to make for the person who has a baby inside them and have to live the possible consequences of that. A lot of women who decided to have an abortion regret it years later and feel like they murdered their child. Men, who wanted an abortion, hardly ever feel that way. There has been quite a lot of research showing that men bond with their children after they are born, women the moment they find out they're pregnant. And the physical difference are even more obvious. Pregnancy is not a trivial thing for your body, you'll deal with the changes for the rest of your life.

I asked if you didn't want to discuss the take, why did you comment?

[zorro8888]

The majority of pregnancies are never planned and the guys in the relationships still do what I mentioned.
The decision to have an abortion is harder on the parents period. Stop trying to give women the upper hand constantly... you don't even go for a state of equality on the matter.
Are you a man? Since when did how a couple of guys feel suddenly reflect an entire gender... Are you qualified to say how guys feel about the death of their child? You're being completely biased.

I already said that guys can't endure the physical process of pregnancy... what do you want me to do about that? You're comparing nine month of uncomfort and a couple of hours of pain versus an actual life. Sounds Great!!

I commented because I opposed your point and wanted to answer your question... was that not obvious?

[Anonymous]

See, you say that you think it would be "obvious" that a rapist would have no right to the child at all, but unfortunately not everyone thinks that way. There are states that have laws that force the victim to give the rapist joint custody of the child. And states that won't allow the woman to abort the product of rape - and I get that some people would say "that child has a right to life" but what kind of life would that child have? If a young, poor woman is raped she probably won't be able to care for the child. Hell, she probably can't even afford the medical care!
That's one of the things that make me angriest. I totally understand what you're saying about the man should have a right to keep the child, but the man isn't the one who has to carry the baby for nine months. What if she can't afford pre-natal care? What if her work won't give her paid maternity leave? I think I would be more likely to agree with you, if as a country we took better care of pregnant women. I think a lot more people would agree with you if we did provide paid maternity leave and better access to health care.

[Anonymous]

i get what you are saying
but it is in the end her body and no one wants to be forced to do something they dont want, and that sucks for the man that wants the child. If i was in that situation... i would agree, only if the man, agreed to pay for all medical expenses, the vitamins, expenses for missing work, getting to appointments, maternity clothing, help with proper healthy foods to eat etc
The missing work, what if the woman doesn't have coverage for maternity leave at her work, how is she going to support herself once she has to quit, or doesn't have enough hours to qualify her for unemployment insurance?

I was with a guy for 3 years and i already had kids and did not want any more, was done. i became pregnant and considered an abortion, because of my age and because we werent living together etc But because he wanted this child i had her. She is 3years old now and i am so glad i considered his feelings. he is an amazing dad and even tho we dont live together and aren't a couple, we are stilll very close and the best of friends raising her

[jacquesvol]

That sucks for the man who wants the child. He made the wrong choice. He should pick a woman who wants a pregnancy and childbirth and a child too.

[AshleyMD]

I completely agree.
Although I do recognize a couple problems that this brings, one of which you have already addressed, it being the mother's body. I think your solution is a good one considering we do not have technology to incubate the baby outside of the mother or to transplant and already growing fetus into a surrogate (at least I'm pretty sure that that isn't possible as of yet.) Another problem this brings is when it is an abusive relationship and the father demands the mother to keep the baby or demands she aborts and she complies because they're in an abusive relationship or vice versa the women aborts and he complies with it because it's an abusive relationship or she keeps the baby and demands things of him to support the baby he never wanted. A solution for this may by to check that no abuse is taken place either way, although for some cases the party being abused would have to come forward themselves.
I think bringing this issue up is a step in the right direction but it would be nice if these problems are addressed and practical solutions are made.

[SJSlady]

Men need the right to their babies. How do women expect men to support them when they are pregnant if men don't even have a right to be a father yet? Men NEED it. Men also need the right to opt out of parenthood if they want to. If a father is not ready to be a father, the mother should take the baby and raise it herself. If a mother is not ready to be a mother, the father should take the baby and raise it herself. I am tired of men having to swallowed whole by 18 years of child support. I am tired of men that WANT to be fathers not getting the chance to even be one. Get rid of abortion. Adoption exists. Me and my wonderful husband would take one of those "unwanted" babies. So would tons of homosexual and infertile couples. Babies are in high demand. Abortion is horrible because it leaves men without rights to their children. Abortion is horrible because it is making a baby or fetus pay for it's parents contraceptive mishap. There are condoms and patches and IUD's and vasectomies and tubal legations and shots and so many things. And adoption. People need to stop killing their babies. And by people, I mean women, because women are the only ones who have the right to kill their babies.

[SJSlady]

Himself*

[mistixs]

In order to have equal rights in abortion, the man has to have equal responsibility regarding the pregnancy. As per the cost of surrogacy, a woman contributes $50,000 worth of value to the pregnancy. A man needs to be expected to contribute equal value to the pregnancy, which can include paying medical bills, paying the cost of nutrition for the mother and unborn baby, etc.

[Prof_Don]

I'm not into the idea of forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want.

What is tricky, however, is when the guy WANTS her to get an abortion, she doesn't... and he is therefore forced to support a child he doesn't want (and could technically not have due to abortion).

-----

I understand the mantra of "you made the kid, handle your responsibility".

But on the flipside, there is a way to terminate the pregnancy, which he WANTS to do, which is overridden by the female... which therefore puts his living standard at the mercy of the woman, and that's not fair either.

-----

Another tricky proposition is:

to allow the guy to relinquish his rights as a parent, if he wants to abort and she doesn't, which means the woman is on her own to raise the kid if she wants to keep it.

Having this stipulation means the woman know she can't siphon money from the guy to raise the kid, therefore she may lean more towards having an abortion.

------

But that means many men in this pussified era we live in will bail on being in their kids' lives for support (not just money but in all ways).

------

Damn this is a dicey situation, and we just cracked the surface!

[Lauren-green]

I think in some cases, some cases no. Depends on the situation. I know of a women who wanted to have an abortion, the father of the baby didn't want her to. She agreed to have the baby for him, but told him she didn't want anything to do with the baby afterwards but she would pay her child support. Fast forward to a year after the baby is born, she pays 150% childsupport (so more than she legally has to) but still sticks to not wanting to see or look after the baby. The father packs a shit and tries to take her to court for not looking after the child. Soo many people supported the 'single dad' yet when there are 'single mums' who go through the same situation, where the daddy doesn't want the baby or doesn't even pay child support, nobody supports the mum. So this is just one of the many examples of how that sort of thing can go wrong. I'm not saying I do or don't support abortion, I'm just saying there are many factors that come into play. And everybodies situation is different, and should be treated as such. So its hard to base whether the mans right to the child should come into play, with EVERY pregnancy or not..

[TonyMetal_86]

And that's why miss lauren, sex should be only betwee a married couple because that's the right thing to do and everyone is happy and the baby gets a mother and a father both loving him or her...

The man does his role towards his wife and baby and the woman vice versa.

[Lauren-green]

@tonymetal_86 I guess you're entitled to your own opinion 👍🏻

[TonyMetal_86]

Yes i am

[Lliam]

This gets really complicated, even given your stipulation that the couple are married.

It must be acknowledged that, even though the husband wants the child, he is not the one who will suffer the discomfort and pain of pregnancy and delivery. His daily schedule will not be disrupted. His body won't risk the possible ravages and permanent changes effect many women.

But I'm wondering how such a thing can happen to a married couple. If the woman didn't want to get pregnant, why didn't she take steps to prevent it? Numerous contraceptive options are available to women. This is a hugely important question.

Did a contraceptive drug or device fail? That's the only reasonable reason I can think of for the woman to be in this position. So, suppose it did. How many weeks passed before she discovered that she was pregnant?

I presume that the husband knew before he married the woman that she didn't want to have children. There had to be an agreement, right? Or is is possible that they already have kids and she just doesn't want any more? Either way, they should be able to discuss the problem and reach an agreement. That's what people in healthy relationships do. I would be interested in hearing both of their arguments.

I tend to come down on the side of the woman, but at this point I can't be sure without knowing more.

Was she a dumb ass for not taking precautions against pregnancy?
Did a birth control method fail?
Is the guy a dick for failing to acknowledge that he had understood from the get go that the woman didn't want to have babies?
Is the guy a dick for not caring about his marriage and caring more about his own desires than for his wife's physical and emotional well being?
Is he a right to lifer who thinks that a zygote is a human being?

[Sugardaddy870]

To me the question has never been what the man or woman want.
The Issue is both did an action that resulted in the creation of a "Life"
Simply not wanting a child or not wanting to be pregnant should never be an issue. Accountability for ones actions sometimes results in things we do not want but choose to because of our actions. There is adoption and other choices if you do not want to raise a child. But why is there even the thought of Killing a life. "The Child's life" should be put before the needs of the Adults first and foremost. Anything else is just evil and selfish on multiple levels. A womans choice (A choice to commit murder or not) that is what the choice is when you say that. Woman are supposed to be so loving, caring and emotional and supposidly so much more rational then men but not so much that they can not say I got pregnant my life will have to be on hold for 9 months and ill have to be uncomfortable for awhile and then I can adopt this "Life" to someone who can be a better parent then me. Where have we gone to in any sense of morals or right and wrong when that is no the common sense way a woman should think and it is not. I do not want to hear about Incest, rape, danger to mother and all that junk that accounts for a tiny fraction of abortions. The over whealming amount of abortions happen for selfishness and nothing more.

[ArtistBboy]

You have a strong reason here to develop a business plan and address a problem; just saying you seem very passionate about the topic and it seems rather simplistic an approach to build a synthetic womb, then staff the facility to care for the child. Or hell, maybe even a product that allows a father to carry around the child, totally averting stretch marks or many other factors which deter women from pregnancy.

As for my opinion; there's no way, to date, for a couple to litigate this discussion outside of their own accord. And no one is really going to openly express their feelings in a court like settings. So the only man who is gonna have that type of power is a man who is willing to listen and understand what's controlling her decisions. Fear? Imbalance? Resentment? Anger? etc..

He'd have to be socially calibrated and able to handle the situation at hand; which is exactly what women look for in men - the guy who they can rely on before they make a bad judgement call. Who knows? Maybe that type of guy might save a life.

[SirRexington]

This is such a difficult subject that is so complex and asks a lot of philosophical questions.
I believe a man who is active in her life should have a say. He has a say regardless of if she wants it or not. He may not want it. He may not be ready. Women have gone off the pill before, withholding that information from their spouses. I think personal responsibility is important but it's not responsible to allow 2 unready and probably financially burdened people to have a kid. I think forcing them is wrong. I think the man should have a say. Now we don't live in a perfect world, of course with this situation I don't think it would matter. Someone will get the short end of the stick.
A man who doesn't want the kid can't make the final decision. It's her body, she's going through nine months of physical change and labor not you. If she decides to have it and the guy doesn't want it then the guy should leave if he isn't ready. And he should not have to pay child support either because he explicitly stated he did not support having a kid in the form place. If the guy wants the kid but the woman does not, then he will have to live with the fact that she can have another one when she is ready or he will have to end the relationship with her if it's that big a deal to him. And. it is a big deal.

[TheKack]

I agree with your take on this. I have always had a very hard time with the disparity in the laws surrounding abortion and custody.

I think there should be mandatory mediation between the parents before an abortion happens. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, then I understand why no mediation is necessary. After mediation, the impartial party should decide if the mother is in a position to carry the child, or if abortion is viable as an option.

This won't be an option, though. Currently the laws are written to recognize the fetus as a part of the woman's body, not its own entity. Because of that, and unless it changes the choice is hers.

All that said, if a father wants to not be a part of the child's life, then he should be able to void his parental rights and absolve himself of responsibility. It's disturbing that men are always responsible for the child and money needed to carry and raise it, but in some places women can just abort up to the day the baby would be born.

Also, having watched interviews and read articles from OB/GYN docs, some of which are further abortionists, there's nothing really out there, in America, that we can't save the mother and child. We have the ability to save 3 month premature births. In some rare cases, it may be medically necessary, but most use it to just avoid hassles. None of this is to say there aren't risks. Just that the risks are almost always manageable.

[TonyMetal_86]

Look at all these bullsh*t, since when do a REAL MAN need the permission or a say to his baby!

If the man say that the baby should stay than the baby will stay and if not than the woman will abort...

Since in my case i'll never have a child outside marriage than it will be a happy event to know that my future wife is pregnant!

If she say that she wants to abort and your a man and you don't get a say, i mean if she spoke to me in this tone, she will surely know that she might going to be aborted with the baby...

I wait for no slave to give me my rights, i know what my rights are, i don'r care if it's prison for life or executed, die as a hero instead of suffering and dieing like a RAT, in the end we are all going to die...

No women till today played strong on me and it will never happen! Not in my cave and not in my stone age era!

I get the 100% say and because she is my wife and we are one, we agree with each other so she feels that she is respected...

She will enjoy her baby and i will take good care of both of them...

@Asker, it's like your about to cry and giving many excuses and sorries for what your saying, just stand tall and that's your right, aren't you man enough to stand against a feminist agenda and burn it down?

[Song4TheBroken]

Well quite clearly not you tit! It's her body and she can do whatever she wants with it. You can't force someone to go through pregnancy if they don't want to you idiot. Yes both the man and woman played an equal part in creating that life, but apart from being the sperm donor, the man has no further part in it. Does he have to carry the baby for the best part of a year? Does he have to endure all the problems that come with pregnancy? Does he have to go through the pain of child birth? No, so STFU.

[Aud_Queen]

So the women should be forced to bear a fetus she doesn't want for 9 months? She's risking her life and health. That's why the women has the final say. Carrying a child full term is a lot more than just paying bills sadly :/

I always thought that if the man really wanted a child, he should choose to be with a women that would want the same thing. I know life doesn't always turns out like that, but if the women doesn't want to carry the child and the doctors won't let her abort, she'll find away; safe or not. It's happening in 3rd world countries now.

I understand what you saying but some things in life just can't be fair :/

[nerual92]

Honestly, she should've thought about that BEFORE she had sex. Accidents hapoen no matter how safe you try to be. She knew the risks involved. It is just as much the fathers child & it is the mothers.

[Song4TheBroken]

@neural92 So you're saying that women shouldn't ever have sex unless they're prepared to have a child? Are you fucking dumb?

[Song4TheBroken]

I mean @nerual92

[Aud_Queen]

@neural92

The problem isn't that she didn't know. It's that she refuses to be a host of a parasite/fetus whatever you want to call it. You can't force her. What do you propose? That they strap her down for 9 months force feeding her?

[ThisGuy42]

@Song4TheBroken nerual92 is right. Obviously if your going to have sex you need to know you can get pregnant. And if you do. Abortion is not the way to fix it. You can pay for your mistakes. Its a life. And your not giving it a chance. They say their pro choice. But what about the babys choice? What about the mans choice? That is a life that was never lived. A invention never made. A discovery never discovered. A choice not chosen. You are stealing whatever that baby was going to have. For your own desires. That's fucking murder. That's bull shit. Its your own fucking fault your pregnant (unless you were raped). And now you can carry your child for nine months. It may mess up your Life. But your not even giving that baby a chance to Live. Its not its fault you were a dumbass. But now you got to give it a chance. And men should have a say in it. Its his baby too.

[Mustachekitteh]

@ThisGuy42 What if the chick dies while giving birth or something. In that case her death would be the cause of the man wanting to take care of the baby. When she wanted an abortion in the first place since she knew she didn't want to go through any of that. Plus even more if she had all the doctor check ups, birth control pills, etc . So in away He kind of just caused her to lose her life for carrying that baby for 9 months and then dying. Could any man live with himself knowing that?

[Mustachekitteh]

A: In 2013, 289 000 women died from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease – approximately 10 million women each year.

[ThisGuy42]

@Mustachekitteh Well about 1.2 baby are aborted every year in the US. And I wouldn't be able to live knowing I got a girl pregnant. And she killed my baby. So really this could all be avoided if you didn't have sex in the first place. Like seriously fucking wait until you can support a child. If I were a girl and I got pregnant because I was being a dumbass. I would give my life before if I had to. To let the baby live. Its a human whos life has been stolen.

[mary_jane1998]

@thisguy42 It is not just the girl that should be blamed here and it's the girls choice i'm not saying it is right but when it all comes down to it she has the right to abort. not to mention you're only 14..

[Aud_Queen]

@ThisGuy42

Just don't be with a girl who would abort if she had an unwanted pregnancy. If your not for abortion, make sure she isn't either.

Asking her to die/ risk her life for the baby... will raise controversy for sure. Who's life is more important to you? The unborn fetus or the mom?

[ThisGuy42]

"not to mention you're only 14.." The fuck does that mean? This site is for sharing your opinion. And were all entitled to our own opinions. No matter what age. If you don't like mine then you should here the ones I was keeping to myself. @mary_jane1998 I'm not just blaming girls. Yeah she has the right. Doesn't mean its not super fucked up and selfish.

[Song4TheBroken]

@ThisGuy42 hahahahaha you literally haven't even got a clue what you're talking about kid.

[ThisGuy42]

Could you explain to me what I don't know about. I know I'd love to hear. @Song4TheBroken

[Longblackveil]

@ThisGuy42

Don't let their personal attacks bother you. They're trying to discredit you and your age because their argument is bankrupt, your the only one making sense.

The fetus' life IS more important than the mothers, thats what being a parent is ALL ABOUT. If anyone really gets an abortion for fear of dying in child birth their nuts. Its more likely that they just don't want "the burden"

[ThisGuy42]

Thank you. @Longblackveil

[Aud_Queen]

Or she wants to live? Lol Apperently it's selfish not to want to give birth if it could kill you. You are just a vessel of life.

"That's what being a parent is about"

Not really. Sacrificing your life doesn’t make you a parent. That's like saying dying a martyrdom makes you a hero. It's admirable and even courageous. But don't be silly.

[ThisGuy42]

You truly are a coward. You would take someones life to make sure you don't get hurt for your own mistake. This whole discussion disgusts me. And you sicken me.

[Aud_Queen]

Wow, there. Since when is this about what I would do? You don't know me like that. I'm advocating for pro choice. Why I would do in this case has nothing to do with you. Case closed.

[jacquesvol]

@nerual92 those anti choice guys should've thought about that BEFORE they had sex.

[ComDom]

@jacquesvol you clearly live in some kind of ideological lala land. If sex happened in a bad circumstance the solution isn't necessarily abortion.

[Poppykate]

Wow, there is some really negative comments from men. I think that in a equal, loving relationship, than each partner should have an equal say. But unfortunately, life isn't always so perfect. I found myself in a similar position when I was 19. The guy said on no uncertain terms that he didn't want to see me again, after I tried to talk to him 2 months after we broke up. (I was about 10 weeks along at this point). I was a part time student, full time admin officer. I couldn't undertake the responsibility of a baby on my own. So I took care of things and didn't tell him. It may have been wrong not to have told him. But not a day goes by where I am thankful for the decision I made.