Woman's Body, Woman's Choice. Okay, so how about Man's Wallet, Man's Choice?

[Ghostluck]

If a woman should be allowed to escape the responsibility and consequences of having sex by having an abortion, then should it also be fair play and allow men to make the choice if they wish to be a part of the child's life if she decides to have it? I mean, if it's a Woman's Body, Woman's Choice, then should it also be, "Man's Wallet, Man's Choice?

Just to be clear, I do not advocate for either one. I think abortion should be illegal unless the woman was raped, if the child will be born with severe deformities, or if she takes the morning after pill, before it even grows large enough to have a heart beat or can experience pain. Otherwise, I feel if you make the choice to have sex, you should be responsible to care for the child. If you are unable to care for the child, the child should go up for adoption. I think the man should be equally responsible. However, if we are to be fair, then a man who is unwilling to be a father should have the right to say no and simply walk away, if it is to be legal for a woman to have an abortion, since it would only be fair.

No, a man should be held liable for the child even if he does not want it.

Yes, if a woman can be allowed to neglect the responsibility, then a man should be as well.

I'm on the fence about this one, this is edgy ground here.

Other, I will explain in my post.

[unknownforever]

So my opinion might upset a few people, but this is just what I believe is best. A man should be allowed to walk away if a woman is allowed an abortion. I am against abortions being illegal. I believe there are more factors for getting an abortion than just rape, complications and deformities. There could be a risk that a woman is in danger (due to abuse or other issues like that), which means the child would be in harm. Perhaps she wasn't raped, but coerced. Perhaps she is very young, and although she made the decision to sleep with someone, she may severely impact this child's life if she is not ready for it. Then there are women have some illnesses that will be passed onto the child and harm them (I heard a story about this, but don't know the name of the illness). Then you have people who are not mentally fit, and will either end up abusing the child, neglecting them, doing drugs around the child, potentially kill the child etc. This is why I am more understanding of abortions. Now, I do say it is fair for a man to walk away if he does not want the child. You can't expect the other to stay if you don't have to. However, there are some circumstances I believe when BOTH parties should stay (although I am not saying they NEED to). But if you have been with your partner for a very long time, and both of you have had sex for years on end, then one day the girl ends up pregnant. I think a proper discussion should go down before one say, "keep the child", or "get rid of the child". I feel like it would be a shame if one of the partners left due to one of them wanting a kid. You have both been together for so long, are you sure you would want to give up that whole relationship, when this baby could be a blessing? I am not someone that would get an abortion unless of extreme circumstances, but I understand if people were to get it. And I don't think men should have to stay, or have to pay for a child he doesn't want. It's not right to force parties into having a child, or paying for it (man or woman). This is just my opinion.

[Ghostluck]

Nope, I think your answer is fair and logical.

[Kai_123]

I believe that the mothers should be allowed abortions, and the fathers can leave if they choose, but the government won't allow the fathers not to pay child support cause then guess what? They're gonna have to pay the mothers that money, cause otherwise everyone would literally be homeless and then no one would be able to pay taxes and keep the money flowing to the government, children are expensive, you can't expect a single mother with no child support to work that much AND take care of the kid, she'd have to work like 3 jobs, and if she's at work all the time she's gonna have to pay someone to babysit, which is less money towards food and other essential stuff. And also, abortions are not morally wrong, if nobody in the world would be allowed to have an abortion, the world would be overpopulated, the foster care systems will fill up and there will be more kids on the street, kids and mothers are gonna starve, adolescent gets pregnant and gets kicked out and forced to raise a baby on the street with probably no job cause she can't get an education now cause she's taking care of a baby full time. Neither is wrong morally, if the father doesn't wanna be involved, he shouldn't have to, if the mother wants an abortion, she should be allowed to get one, the difference is tho, is that the government won't allow the fathers not to pay child support, cause that'd probably be more money from them.

[Anonymous]

When a women have abortions, in more than 90% of of cases it is because they don't want to be a parent for personal reasons such as the child getting in the way of education or career goals. In other words, the exact same reasons men might not want to become a parent. When a woman chooses an abortion the "my body, my choice" argument is virtually irrelevant in most of those cases. So in essence it is just an excuse for women to have 100% control over men's reproductive choices.

The attitudes that are holding society back from giving men a choice in the matter are archaic. The day will come when men will have the legal right to a so called "financial abortion" but for now we remain in the dark ages. The fact that most feminists still argue against it is just one more factor in a huge body of evidence proving that feminism is all about female privilege and has nothing to do with equality.

[Soteris]

On a surface level it sounds reasonable but the rights you are infringing on in this case is not the womans but the childs and they have the right to you as a parent which trumps your right to not get involved financially. Basically your argument dont really get off the ground before being shot down.

[Ghostluck]

Well, this is not about what is morally right. It can be argued that having an abortion is very morally wrong, but there are women who disagree. What is more morally wrong, having an abortion, or the man not wanting anything to do with the child? I believe if a man should be forced to pay child support, then a woman should be forced to have the child. That is the only logical fairness. However, if women believe, "My body, my choice" then they should also logically believe in, "My wallet, my choice."

This is not a question of morals, but rather a question of what is fair to the individual. Either case is not fair to the child, the mother having an abortion is not fair to the child, a father walking away and neglecting child support is not fair to the child. However, if we are to make abortion legal, then the man having the choice to refuse child support should also be legal.

[Soteris]

That is the problem, you can't argue that having an abortion is immoral. Essentially, abortion is a "victimless" crime because there are no rights to infringe upon where as financial abortion explicitly has a child involved which makes is it impossible.

Abortion and "financial abortions" are not the same or similar in any sort of way because of the fact that in one situation there was no child and never would be and in the other there IS a child. That changes the whole scenario and means that they can never be compared thus this whole argument is a waste of everyones time.

[Ghostluck]

So then it boils down to the same argument, does that child/should that child have rights. Since nobody can agree that an unborn child is a life, then we can't even agree that a man should be allowed to walk away. The whole thing is hypocritical if you ask me. I'm simply trying to show, that if a woman can chose to kill an unborn baby just because she doesn't want the responsibility, then a man should be able to walk away and not pay child support for the same reason, regardless of the morality of the choice. Morality doesn't even play a factor in this. All I am saying is that if it's "My body, my choice" then a man should also be able to say, "My wallet, my choice." regardless of how wrong that is to the child. On one hand, you are literally killing a life, on the other hand you are leaving raising that child up to the mother. Either way is seriously messed up if you ask me, but... if it's "My body, my choice" then it needs to be "My wallet, my choice."

People may not like it, but that is what it will end up being in the end. So we either stop now, or this continues and men will demand their right to avoid responsibility as well. Logically speaking of course, I don't prefer the latter, I prefer everyone own up and put their big boy pants on, but sadly, that simply will not happen if women are allowed to kill a life growing inside them.

[Soteris]

It does not matter if the fetus has rights or not for the purposes of the man being able to abandon his duties. Simply he can't just like how the woman would not be able to avoid it either if the abortion still resulted in a living baby. The one and only reason why there is the appearance of injustice between the choices of men and women in regards to avoiding parenthood is because the womans choice removes the issue of rights of the child from being a future problem.

In reality the rights of both men and women are exactly the same. They both have the right of their own bodies and they are both responsible for any future child. The fact that these basic rights has different real world results does not mean there is any injustice in the world and does not mean that men should get additional rights that women does not.

[SlothySlob]

This women's body, woman's choice thing is completely secondary.
It always starts with a male ejaculating, planting a seed in a female. If your dick is clean and wrapped there's legally almost no chance for an unwanted pregnancy.

If you don't want a kid, wrap your nasty dick and your wallet won't be empty.
"BuT iT dOeSn'T fEeL aS gOoD", fuck you. Think with your head for once instead of being a complete fucking degenerate.

[Ghostluck]

The fact is, it takes two people to make bad choices to have an unplanned pregnancy. This is not about what somebody should have done, it's about what is equal rights. If it should be a woman's right to make the choice, then it should also be a man's right to make a choice.

People are so passionate about having abortions being legal that they even have a slogan for it. Fine, however, if that is truly what they want, they must also give way to the notion that a man having a choice should be a decision that is also legal for the man.

[SlothySlob]

Chappelle had a good bit about this, I forget which special. I agree with his sentiment, which to in a sense I agree with you too.
My problem is that people completely forgo any form of forward-thinking, any form of future planning, for debaucherous present thinking where it's more important to put my dick in her pussy.

Condoms aren't a recent invention, where as rubber or latex or polywhatnots are fairly new. The use of a condom may have become more popular in recent years, but the need for a pro-choice or pro-life movement only exists because of people's inability at practicing safe sex. Males can only impregnate, females can only become pregnant. If a male does not impregnate, a female cannot become pregnant.

To your fact that it takes two persons making bad choices, those are two retards that say "BuT iT dOeSn'T fEeL aS gOoD". This kind of irresponsibility being normalized shouldn't be celebrated...

[Ghostluck]

You and I are of the same mindset there. I can't argue with any of that.

[UCrayCray]

So you believe it’s fair to fuck over your own kid just to spite the mother?
And this makes things”equal” to you?

[Ghostluck]

That is not my point. It would not be to spite the mother. Some men have their reasons to not want to be a father. Whatever their reasons are, I wouldn't know since I have never ran away from that responsibility. The point is, if a woman should be allowed to run away from the responsibility by having an abortion, then fair play dictates that the man should also be allowed to run away from the responsibility, instead of paying child support for the next 18 years for a child he never wanted. I understand it sounds messed up morally, but so does having an abortion.

[UCrayCray]

@Ghostluck
But it is the point. You want to punish women who choose to not have an abortion because other women choose to abortion.
And the person who loses the most is the child that wasn’t aborted.
I’m still waiting for someone, somewhere, to explain how that’s equality?

[Ghostluck]

I think we can both agree that it is unfair for the child, so is having an abortion. However, why is it okay for a woman to abandon her responsibility to the child, but it is not okay for the male to abandon his responsibility to the child? I agree with you, why punish the child? I could ask that exact same question to the mother who chooses to abort the child. However, if we are to make abortion legal, then it is only fair play that the male should also be allowed to make his choice as well. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.

[UCrayCray]

The aborted is non-the-wiser to its abortion. It’s doesn’t feel treated unfairly by abortion.
Can you say the same about a born child who is abandoned by their father? The effects of being abandoned have a far more significant impact on the life of the child who has to actually live it.
And hey! Choosing abortion is a form of taking responsibility. 🤷‍♀️
Women’s right to abortion is not made equal by allowing men to abandon children. It’s just not.
And you can’t make it equal.
I mean, if you insist that we have to create something that give the illusion of equality, then I believe there’s another very important inequality we need to address.
It’s completely unfair that men get to become parents without having to subject their bodies to the things a woman does in order to become a parent.
How do you suggest we make that a little more equal?

[Ghostluck]

I don't know, killing a child vs abandoning a child doesn't really seem like a fair comparison to me. So I would have a hard time arguing that point with you logically, since it is a completely illogical argument to begin with.

As far as equal rights since the mother has to bare the burden of giving birth, I think that was already made fair when if the parents get a divorce, unless the mother is shown to be unfit, she automatically gets custody of the child. But that feels like we are placating the actual point though by bringing up other points that are unrelated. I think you make a good argument, so I might pose that as another question at some point because I feel it is deserving of its own discussion.

[UCrayCray]

I started out explaining some of the things that I thought would help bring some fairness to this issue, but it started looking like an essay.
Let me see if I can give a couple bullet points.
I believe strict rules about support that don’t leaving the paying parent too broke to live and don’t allow for the custodial parent to get rich of the support payer.
I also believe that the father should have an equal shot at being the custodial parent. She shouldn’t have to be inept for him to gain custody.
Those are a couple things I would like to see happen. I’m sure there are many more other ways that can be worked out that don’t include abandoning your children.

[Ghostluck]

Part 1

It may not seem like it, only because I am trying to show everyone the inevitable future here, but I am with you on every point. I am a father, there is no way in hell I would ever abandon my daughter who is currently 14 years old. I would never have agreed to her being aborted. From the very moment of conception, I felt a primal desire and need to protect my child. She did not have to be born for me to feel the responsibility to her. I am completely against abortion unless a woman...

A: Is raped. The man who raped her has no right to spread his seed and DNA if he rapes a woman to do so. A woman should not be forced to have a child if she was raped.

B: The child will be born with a life threatening deformity and would never be able to enjoy life due to this sever deformity. One such that I can think of is the rare disease where kids are born without skin, it's just a constant cracking scab covering.

C: If her giving birth to the child would kill her. It should be her choice if she sacrifices her life for the baby, or if she chooses to live.

D: If she is unable to care for the child, then the morning after pill is acceptable. It stops the production of the child before it grows in to a feeling being, long before nerves or brain cells even begin to form. It's barely a 4 celled organism at this point.

[Ghostluck]

Part 2

Otherwise, I am firmly against abortion.

This also means I am firmly against a man abandoning his child. Part of the problem we have in this world is so many kids growing up without a father. Just by not having a father a child is 10 times more likely to end up in prison or dead by the time they are 25 years old.

Having made my stance very clear, I have to say, the future is it is now, going forward, will dictate that men in the future will indeed push very hard for, "My wallet, my choice." and they will eventually win.

If an individual supports, "My body, my choice" then they are being completely hypocritical if they are against, "My wallet, my choice." It won't matter if they support it or not, it will be the inevitable end if we continue as we are. It will also force women and men to be extremely picky about who they chose to have PIV sex with. Sex will become strictly oral because both men and women are not going to want to risk either as a male, his child being aborted and he has no say so in the matter, and women will be far more choosy because they will not want the man running off if she ends up pregnant.

It's completely inevitable. Regardless of how we feel about it; should this movement of, "My body, my choice" continue.

[Brokenheartedx]

Well maybe if men were actually real men women wouldn't need to abort the offspring of a beta male?

[Ghostluck]

When you have so many Beta males who have successfully fooled the average woman in to thinking they are Alpha males, you will always have this issue. Today, all a guy has to do to fool a woman in to believing he is an alpha male is to wear saggy pants, have a gun and talk street talk. Unfortunately, there are many low intelligence women out there who are actually believing that this is what a alpha male looks like and they are getting knocked up by these losers. So until people are educated as to what an alpha male actually is, we will continue to have this problem.

Me personally, I don't claim membership to any of those terms. I am my own man, I do my own thing and I couldn't care less what other guys *think* they are. I provide and support my child and I keep to myself as best I can. The rest of the world can F-off as far as I am concerned, heh. The world can stay on their side and I'll keep doing my thing over here.

[EnglishEuropean]

How about you just keep it in your pants?

[Ghostluck]

Sure, but the same could be said for women in the way of, "How about keep your panties on." There is a polar argument to every scenario.