Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Men should have a say in their child's abortion (Page 5)
Ask to an AI Persona
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
99Opinion
The mother should decide, it's her body and more or less her child,
it develops in her, we just give some sperm.
However, men should not have to pay alimony if they didn't want the child.
Im pro choice but while the woman is the one giving birth, the father is just as responsible for the kid as the mother is. They can argue custody of the child but they're still equally responsible as they both made the kid.
@notverycreativeguy Alimony rarely covers half the cost of raising a child. It's not like the man is the only one paying. The woman too pays, in money, in time and in fatigue and in stress. The guys paying alimony for a kid they rarely see only pay part of the cost and certainly not any of the trouble. @gotc happily forgets that too.
@jacquesvol It is still money a man loses for nothing, I didn't care about what it covers for.
@madispute
Since the woman pays as much and spends her time and health a lot more, nobody can say it's dishonest towards men. Men who don't want children don't insist on not using condoms (or have a vasectomy but only condoms protect against a STI) Men who want children have to look for a woman who wants children too.
@jacquesvol women putting in more time and energy into dealing with kids doesn't mean abortion is the answer. Men should wear condoms if they don't want kids though.
Abortion is murder. If it's done for any reason that reason must be out of mercy of the life of the child... Such as if they're disabled or disfigured...
The choice to have children was made the moment the parents mated... If you don't want children, don't do sex. It's that simple.
Yes, although they are not the ones who will carry the child for 9 months and give birth, the child is still theirs and the decision to abort the child should be partly theirs. Now ultimatly the choice is the woman's but at least consider his opinion.
Yeah, life is seemingly unfair sometimes. One of the certainties of life.
I wholeheartedly believe it's 'womans body, womans choice'.
Up until that little creature pops out of her womb and is cut from the umbilical cord it is NOT a separate person/entity. That little "attachment" is a part of her body and therefore essentially IS her body... to which I have no rights to tell her what to do with.
I second, in every consensual sex, men should have same rights as women. It is our child too. If we don't have rights on it then who does?
If you disagree then please reply about why we should not?
Men should have an equal say. Women use abortion as birth control these days. It isn't about "their body" either... they simply want control over the male having an option.
They want the ability to trap males they see as potential pay checks and want to abort any possibility of being stuck with a male they don't have need for.
If we were to take the embryo non-evasively out of the female and grow it in the artifical womb, they would piss and moan about how it's "their egg", therefore "their embryo".
Women don't want men raising the children that they don't want, even if he wants it and would be a better parent.
It's all about control over the father.
Of course men should have a say in abortion. EVERYONE should have a say in lawmaking. Everyone should especially have a say in what defines innocent human life, not just women. This kind of thinking has gotten WAY of out of hand.
@ComDom
"EVERYONE should have a say in lawmaking."
Everyone has: elections, the Supreme Court.
@jacquesvol "Everyone has: elections, the Supreme Court."
My point exactly. That should not change.
Did anyone propose to abolish elections or the Supreme Court?
@jacquesvol not yet but things are moving one step closer toward communism. Then all bets are off.
Dude, do you even know what communism means? What are you basing that statement on?
@Dude, do you even know what communism means? What are you basing that statement on?
I'm extremely familiar with communism, are you? Communism isn't run by its people through elections. It's run by people in power, usually military power. Forced abortions and sterilizations happen in those types of governments plenty, along with genocides. The more the government becomes socialized the closer it becomes to communism. Socialism is just a measure of the spectrum between anarchy and totalitarianism. At worst my terminology is off but my points remain.
@cipher42 whoops I responded. Also downvoting before you've even discussed it with me was pointless. I'd imagine the argument to follow will be a similarly poor thought-out endeavor.
@ComDom
" not yet but things are moving one step closer toward communism. Then all bets are off. "
Your fallacy is a slippery slope fallacy. www.nizkor.org/.../slippery-slope.html
@jacquesvol "Your fallacy is a slippery slope fallacy."
I appreciate that and you're somewhat right. But I'm not saying we WILL have communism. I'm saying we are heading in that direction so far. It's just a trajectory.
So you're mainly talking about failed communism, yes? Because things like the Citizebs United or Hobby Lobby decisions, or just the huge wealth gap certainly aren't anything like what the ideals of communism support. And yes, slippery slope fallacy. And the fallacy (can't rememer the name- I think it's a form of ad hominem) that just because something was supported by a bad person/ideology, it is inherently bad.
@cipher42 "So you're mainly talking about failed communism, yes?"
Essentially every communistic government has done things like that and there have been almost no (if any) successful true communisms. Even countries like China are only becoming successful because they are adopting capitalistic policies.
"Because things like the Citizebs United or Hobby Lobby decisions"
No idea what you're talking about here.
"the huge wealth gap certainly aren't anything like what the ideals of communism support"
The wage gap is largely due to government intervention. We don't have anything like true capitalism. We've been growing closer to communism since the progressives 50+ years ago. Fiat currency causes the massive wealth gaps.
None of what I said was a fallacy. You both demonstrate a lack of familiarity with how fallacies work. I never said it was GOING to become communism nor did I saw communism would ALWAYS be bad. I mentioned true tendencies and nothing more.
But it is failed communism. Communism as an ideology, in its theoretical state, does not espouse those sorts of ideals. Communistic societies that have fallen into what is essentially a dictatorship, however, may.
What, you don't know of those decisions? You probably should if you're going to make any sorts of arguments about US politics and where we're headed. Citizens United allowed unlimited campaign contributions. Basically extended freedom of speech in relation to money (Because money counts as speech according to Buckley v. Valeo) to corporations, so the government can't regulate that. Hobby Lobby ruled that closely held religious corporations could be exempt from the birth control requirement of the ACA (more freedom of religion- less government regulation). Both are idiotic decisions, but certainly take power from the government and uphold individual freedom- certainly not a characteristic of communism or socialism.
"But it is failed communism. Communism as an ideology, in its theoretical state, does not espouse those sorts of ideals. Communistic societies that have fallen into what is essentially a dictatorship, however, may."
This we can agree on. To me it's too utopian to be realistic. It assumes people are inherently selfless like ants. The problem is we aren't. We don't do hive minds and we're motivated for ourselves and our families first and foremost. You can thank evolution for that.
"Citizens United allowed unlimited campaign contributions. Basically extended freedom of speech in relation to money (Because money counts as speech according to Buckley v. Valeo) to corporations, so the government can't regulate that."
I have no comment on this. I don't know what I would recommend. I'd probably fall back onto the Libertarian view on it.
As for the wage gap, why so? From what I've seen, the severity of the wealth gap is strongly correlated lower top marginal tax rate (as well as other factors including education, lack of unions, etc). So it seems that more government regulation in that area at least would do good.
So what exactly are your specific examples of why we're becoming more communistic?
@cipher42 "Hobby Lobby ruled that closely held religious corporations could be exempt from the birth control requirement of the ACA (more freedom of religion- less government regulation). Both are idiotic decisions, but certainly take power from the government and uphold individual freedom- certainly not a characteristic of communism or socialism."
I like this one. I don't think more government regulation is wise. And you are clearly liberal so we are undoubtably going to disagree. I don't have faith in government running my life. It is a characteristic of communism. Anarchy is about individualism and Communism is about collectivism. Those are its defining characteristics.
I suppose 'capitalism' would have been more appropriate than 'anarchy' but i was trying to be very clear*
Definitely, yes. Communism would be great if people were all actually entirely altruistic. Which is why it can work to an extent in smaller communities. But on a large scale, it just doesn't work.
My point with Citizens United is simply that if anything, we're moving in a less communistic direction. What exactly would be the libertarian view on that? No government regulations at all?
"Definitely, yes. Communism would be great if people were all actually entirely altruistic. Which is why it can work to an extent in smaller communities. But on a large scale, it just doesn't work."
Well then we have no argument. I think it's possible that communism could work on a large scale but it seems incredibly unlikely to me. It's such a massive infrastructure to maintain with very little if any incentive given that everyone is supposed to be equal. Not to mention that the beauty of capitalism is that is a business fails another can emerge to take its place. Big communistic governments aren't supposed to fail but they are likely to because of their incredible complexity, among other factors.
"My point with Citizens United is simply that if anything, we're moving in a less communistic direction. What exactly would be the libertarian view on that? No government regulations at all?"
I honestly don't know. I will say that Libertarians want minimal 'necessary' government.
@cipher42 but yeah touche you stumped me on Citizens United. I have heard about that before but I still don't know how to handle it. My initial thought is that the market should be allowed to decide but I really don't know. [Federal] Government was supposed to (mostly) protect life, liberty, and property. That's basically it.
I suppose so. Though personally I don't like pure communism OR pure capitalism. A completely free market with no government regulation sounds not particularly pleasant to me. Wealth gap, monopolies, bad labor practices, all that lovely stuff. I actually like the way some European countries, like Denmark, are doing it. Of course nothing is perfect, but certainly some systems work better than others.
Which is why I also don't really like libertarians. I'm not sure they even fully understand what minimal government regulation would mean. Again, tax correlation with wealth gap and such.
@cipher42 I think we mostly agree. I tend to align more with Jeffersonianism. He was a political genius if there ever was one. The only thing I'm not fond of is his (apparent) view on public education. I'm more fond of private education, possibly with vouchers. That allows for more options.
Minimal government regulation would put the money in the hand of the producers rather than welfare recipients who are subsidized to reproduce. That's just reality. Again I think that the massive wealth gap is caused by a quasi-government organization aka the federal reserve. So government regulation is part of the problem in my opinion. Monetary policy is bad. Jefferson knew that 200+ years ago
As far as monopolies go I think that's mostly fear mongering. As long as people aren't being killed for trying to compete or corrupting the government competition in the market will win out.
I don't think I've ever actually heard of that, but being as Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite founders it sounds like it could be nice.
Also, noooooo on the private education thing. Firstly, for profit education is not something that sounds good to me. College costs enough already, and I've heard some not great stuff about for profit colleges scamming students. Also, when I think "private schools" I mainly think of those Christian schools that get to ignore the separation of church and state that applies to public schools, and thus teach that evolution is lies and dinosaurs coexisted with humans. So there's that.
Where does welfare play into this? Denmark has a strong welfare program and significant government regulation, and yet it has an incredibly low level of wealth inequality. Specific examples of where your strategy has worked, perhaps?
As for monopolies, I don't think so. I mean, already there's issues with internet providers being crap due to lack of competition. Plus, you already see the awful business practices that occur with some major corporations that aren't even monopolies yet. Like Walmart for instance. They come into communities, end up shutting down local businesses, have terrible environmental practices, and treat their employees like crap. Just because they can, since they're already so big that it won't harm them significantly if they get sued or something.
@cipher42 It's a common misconception that private = for profit. Non-profits are also private and most private schools tend to be nonprofit.
"separation of church and state"
Isn't a law or in the Constitution. It was just a letter or something that is referenced that Jefferson said or something. Basically the intent was to prevent the Church from running the state not to prevent all influence from religion. Most of the founding fathers had some sort of religious values.
You don't NEED examples to say that something COULD work. That would be a fallacy to assume that. Denmark also has extremely high taxes and a negligible military so I don't see your point.
Basically Denmark is fine if you like taking money from people who earned money and giving it to people who didn't, allowing them to perpetuate their lack of productivity through offspring.
I could blame the entirety of your remaining post on high taxes, regulation, etc reducing competition.
I can't argue the environment very well at this point though. There might need to be government regulation somehow.
@cipher42 there isn't really a debate as to whether higher taxes and regulation can reduce competition. Massive multinationals aren't headquartered here now because of the high corporate taxes. It costs enough money and stress to start a business without the government making it harder. Lower barriers of entry = more businesses = more competition.
If the man plans and wants to be in the childs life (not necessarily in mine) then yes, absolutely they should have a say in it.
If, however, the father is not in the picture, or doesn't want to be, runs off at the news, etc. Then no, I'm sorry, but you don't get to make me a single mother for my entire life because you feel like it.
Yes a man should absolutely say his opinion regarding the abortion. However, it is the woman who will be carrying that child and it is the woman who has the absolute last say in whether to carry the child or not. No man should ever force a woman to do something she is not ready for. End of discussion.
Tough girl eyyy... you surely have never bee with a REAL MAN before because like it or not you will carry the baby and with a SMILE your face 😊
I will. But if a woman doesn’t want to, she should not be forced to.
There is no i don't want to when a woman is married, that's a part of marriage and if she'a a housewife why would she even be worried, her husband is the one responsible of her and his coming baby 😏
Outside marriage, they should talk about it and have a deal.
Now if the pregnancy is going to put the wife in danger and might die than of course the husband will choose his wife's health because they are one.
@TonyMetal_86 Just because a woman is married doesn't mean she doesn't contribute financially to the partnership. Children aren't just a foregone conclusion of marriage if you aren't ready. The husband is not solely responsible for a baby. And some couples don't want chlldren. married or not.
@Screenwriter i don't care about what others wants, i was talking about my personal choice and in my case there is no girl who contributes financially, no to working women ans yes to HOUSEWIVES!
I like your take, it's true that it isn't fair that women can just abort without even talking to the father, but I think that after having a long convo with each other, the woman kind of has to be the one to decide since she's carrying the child for 9 months.
It's just an overall hard situation to discuss and people who can't deal with the possibility of pregnancy without protection shouldn't have sex at all to avoid this problem
If a man has no rights, he should have no responsibilities. If he has rights, he should have responsibilities.
That's just decency. But women will oppose it, because they want as much rights as possible with as few responsibilities as possible.
Bottom line... the guy gets screwed no matter what decision is made.
Bottom line... the guy made the wrong choice. He should pick a woman who wants a pregnancy and childbirth and a child too.
It's really up to the woman to let you know... otherwise it's in their body, you have zero say in it what they should do.
I totally get your point but in the end, no matter what we think about it, we can't force a woman to go through a pregnancy when she doesn't want the child.
As much as it might sucks for a man, it just how it is.
"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!" I agree with this. But not many guys have the same mentality as you and walk away as soon as they find out their girlfriend is pregnant. Some decide to have an abortion because they can't do it alone.
You want a say in child abortion? Dont fuck some woman you just met. No pregnancy=No abortion. If you're an irresponsible person, you get yourself into shit that you dont want to be into.
No form of birth control is 100% effective!
and 30% or so. of all conceptions end with an early miscarriage.
I agree. I will say right off that I am pro life. But since abortion is legal, I think a father in the picture should be able to legally stop an abortion. If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can give up parental rights. Sex makes babies. So if you don't want to chance carrying one to term, then don't have sex. Why are women so stupid?
That's basically how I feel. I don't understand the idea "the women shouldn't have to give birth to a baby she doesn't want"
Hmm well I guess she really doesn't, her actions (in an overwhelming majority of cases) caused her to be pregnant. If she didn't want to give birth to a baby, well she most likely made the wrong choice
Well if they are going to have sex, they should at least be responsible by using condoms, contraceptives, etc so no abortion would need to happen in the first place.
@Longblackveil
His actions (in an overwhelming majority of cases) caused her to be pregnant. If he didn't want her to abort, well, he most likely made the wrong choice
@jacquesvol
Are you saying that the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are rape? Because I don't see how you can bear the entire responsibility of the preg. On the man. I feel pretty confortable in saying that the vast majority of pregs occur because of consensual sex. In that case, BOTH of their actions caused her to be pregnant. There's no other way to spin it
Comfortable*
I agree with you 100%. A man should have a legal right to his child. As a woman, it can be both a blessing and a curse to be able to carry a child, but this is why sex is something that should be taken seriously.
A man should have a legal right to his child IF he AND the woman decided to have one and to make one. Thus if he wants a say, he has to look for a woman who WANTS his baby.
A man has legal rights to his child, once it's born. A man has NO legal rights to her womb. ZERO..
@ jacquesvol "A man has legal rights to his child, once it's born. A man has NO legal rights to her womb. ZERO.."
100% debatable. You've clearly confused your convictions for facts. THEY ARE NOT FACTS. Laws change and whether men should have more rights to their offspring is a subject of relevance. And even if the man had zero rights to her womb, again debatable, the unborn life growing within her certainly could.
@jacquesvol responded^
Whoever is holding the child inside their body gets the last say, sorry.
Then leave my money out of it.
Every female opinion I've read on this topic can be summed up like this:
"Yea it sucks. Guys totally get the shitty end of the stick.
there's an easy solution to this for guys: wearing a condom or choosing a girl who wants a pregnancy and a child.
@jacquesvol another 'easy' solution is fairies with anti-baby magic. But back in reality life happens. And in those instances people have two options: either end a life before it fully has a chance to begin OR giving that person a chance to live. I'm not sure how you became the grand arbiter of life but not everyone agrees with that nonsense.
@ComDom Don't try to give precedence to religion over laws and facts. We don't live in a theocracy.
And we do NOT want a theocracy.
@jacquesvol "Don't try to give precedence to religion over laws and facts. We don't live in a theocracy."
Are you serious? The fairy thing was sarcasm. I'm saying your solution is just as unrealistic and useless as magic. Face reality and actually use 'facts', but first you have to understand them which you're clearly having difficulty doing. I'd rather live in a theocracy any day of the week than a place where innocent people can be murdered. But I think there is a sufficient middle-ground where people stop being so convinced of their ideals and open their eyes.
@ComDom
You want to live in a theocracy? There are actually a number of theocracies in the world:
Vatican city
Iran
Afghanistan (a bit less than 100%)
Saudi Arabia (a bit less than 100%)
Israel (a lot less than 100% )
Pick your choice.
@ComDom
I think you'll have to drop Israel: www.timesofisrael.com/.../
@jacquesvol never said I did. I said I'd rather a theocracy than a world where it's morally acceptable to kill unborn children. Fortunately a theocracy isn't necessary for that to happen. All it takes is for people to open their eyes and not buy the lies anymore. Face the truth.