Of course!
Abortion rights (which I'm against religiously) should be a "package deal." Let's get some real equality.
Anyone one want to start a men's rights movement with me? We can call it "Menacism" 💀😂
Absolutely YES.
If you have a piece of paper that says she agrees to get an abortion in the case sex leads to pregnancy, perhaps, but the status quo is that she gets to choose.
Should you be allowed to walk away from a traffic accident without consequences because you don't care about the damage to your car? You've potentially f*cked up someone else's life, and it's your fault.
Opinion
18Opinion
I think it's fair because there is adoption. Out of the millions of abortions in the US every year, that fund raising could go towards orphanages, better pay for teachers. Even in the most simple case, most certainly you can do more things when you are alive than you can when you are dead.
Though if such a thing were to be realized it would have to be that by default not signing a birth certificate gives a man no rights, but doing so gives much greater rights and responsibilities.
The alternative is seeing numbers as they are now, more men and women who aren't in relationships, but casual flings. The guys still won't pay child support, just give a fake name unless they would support the kid already.
Wow this is a very complex question with no easy answer. And of course hugely different "weight" to the outcomes of choices.
Having an abortion is a huge thing for a woman physically and mentally. A man waving a piece of paper. Not so much. Paying financially for a child? Painful but not quite the same physical pain. Plus I'm sure some men come to love their children even if at the time they weren't ready to be a father.
Taking this consideration in mind what are the options:
Woman wants baby. Man doesn't. Woman willingly goes through pain of birth. Man unwillingly goes through pain of financial support.
Woman doesn't want baby. Man does. Woman (if forced) would go through unwilling pain of birth.
Woman wants baby. Man wants baby. Woman goes willingly through pain of birth.
Woman doesn't want baby. Man doesn't. Only Woman goes through pain of abortion.
Therefore- no matter the outcome it is always the woman that suffers. Just willingly or unwillingly.
That is why she gets the choice.
Now I understand your question is not taking away her choice but rather advocating equality in the man's choice.
My female brain wants to say he had his choice. Before unprotected sex. Men take the risk before. Women take the risk after. But I know it's not so simple. Such as cases of accidental condom leak. And women purposely getting pregnant to entrap a man.
I think it is not achievable like a blanket law of abortion which doesn't question the validity of the choice. Because nobody says a woman who was raped should be forced to keep a pregnancy. But neither does it stop women who just don't want to use protection and just abort? Right or wrong? It doesn't specifically effect a living being (fetus unborn). But for men to have a blanket law to opt out that would be disastrous. A woman suffers for either choice. Men will always take the option with zero suffering or responsibility for their actions. It therefore can only be implemented on a case by case with evidence of entrapment or deceit or other reason why the man's choice to "risk it" was valid.
I'm sure you didn't forget about the woman's choice to have unprotected sex. I can see how that would be hard to remember.
@Ariesman81 yes I mentioned that. But she does knowing the high risk because no matter the outcome she suffers. Either through birth or abortion. The man only suffers if the woman gets pregnant AND decides to legally make him pay for it. She therefore accepts the risk and deals with it one way or another (pain of birth or pain of abortion). The man therefore also has to accept that if he took the risk he may suffer the worse outcome.
I speak from experience as after struggling to get pregnant with my 2nd I thought I couldn't. Got pregnant with a guy 8 months after breaking up with my husband. I told the guy I was pregnant and I was keeping it (because maybe my only chance to have a was baby after I miscarried previous) but I told him also I would not ask anything off him - not money nothing - as I didn't want him thinking I entrapped him on purpose.
My daughter is 13 now. He was at one point interested in maybe seeing her as a baby. But didn't and never has. Admittedly it has been hard on her. I took the risk. I made the decision. I live with the consequences. The guy took the risk. If I had chose he could have had the consequences.
Your choices for answers are not valid for me, but to answer your question...
IF this were to be legal, one of two things must happen. It would first have to be law, which could be a "covers all situations law". Or, it would have to allow for consenting adults to sign a document, prior to having sex or the presence of a pregnancy, that stipulated such a waiver. It would likely need to be witnessed and notarized as well, so you'd need a document to cover everyone you have sex with who agrees to it!
Societies as a whole want to avoid child rearing by the "state". They prefer TWO responsible parties, not one, unless you're a modern day Republican birther. They don't care what happens after the birth if you can't afford to properly raise a child, but they WILL vote against supporting programs that DO care while gaslighting the other party.
Men who don't want the risk of becoming dads should get vasectomies. They're even reversible if you change your mind later in life. Hint: the "concept" of a vasectomy is not the same as getting one. LOL
These are two totally different concepts.
Pro Choice is the woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy they don’t see carrying to term / time of deliverance especially when that impregnation was through incest, rape, sexual assault, hole poked in the condom, birth control failure (vasectomies & pills aren’t fully 100% solutions as people witnessed), etc.
“Paper Abortion” just involves whether or not a male should pay child support for a living child.
Again two totally different concepts and I think you are well aware because you listed No as “No rights for men”. I voted No rights for men because I don’t care about the echo chamber you want to convey here sir.
*forgot to mention 1) children who were raped & impregnated by a father, uncle, brother, stepbrother, etc. they deserve to not carry to term a pregnancy through a violating & demeaning & dehumanizing way that would surely scar them for life / risk of death is increased. 2) Save the life of the woman in rare cases.
While this sounds like a "fair" and rightful idea, it renders to an unfair effect on the already defenseless child.
Stripping this risk from irresponsible sex carries the consequence of more penniless kids roaming in begging conditions, that can't feed themselves while the absent father does, what he does, gambles his money or chugs down several liters/gallons of beer or runs his life into the wall over and over or something.
Therefore, my stance is no. Have sex if you please (I know I would) but do so without making a kid until you actually want one.
Child support should go directly to the kid, not the mother. The mother is likely to squander the child support money on getting her hair and nails done or a vacation trip to some whatever-stan country or anything else (ask me how I know) and end up in debts.
Okay, let’s get into it! So, honestly, I totally see where you’re coming from. If women can choose to back out of the whole pregnancy thing, it feels kinda unfair for men not to have that option too, right? Like, if a woman can decide to terminate a pregnancy and not deal with being a mom, then why shouldn’t a guy be able to say, “I’m out!” when it comes to financial responsibilities?
It’s all about fairness, and honestly, it just makes sense! But then again, we gotta think about the kids in the mix, you know? If both parents can just dip, that could leave a lot of kids without one or both of their parents, and that’s super sad.
But still, I’m all for equality! If women have that choice, men should have a say too. It’s a tough conversation, but great question!
If it is established early in the pregnancy that he won’t be participating in the child's life. As long as she has enough time to abort, then yes. I support a man’s right to remove himself from the being a parent.
I do not support him being allowed to decide when she’s 6 months pregnant that he’s changed his mind.
If it’s established early, yes.
And if she waits to inform him she’s pregnant after it’s too late for an abortion, she’s on her own.
No. Giving men the right to a "paper abortion" is not equality, its giving men additional rights that women does not have. Both men and women have bodily autonomy, or the right over their own bodies. It just so happens that women also carry pregnancies which by our definition of bodily autonomy also gives them right over that process.
This is what fairness looks like. It does not mean that everyone will gain the same amount of value over their benefits.
@Snakeyes7 Men also has the right to an abortion if they become pregnant. Its just very unlikely that they will need one. A paper abortion is an additional right that women does not have.
@Snakeyes7 Men have the same bodily autonomy that women do. Its just that bodily autonomy does not give you paper abortion rights because that is not bodily autonomy.
@Snakeyes7 I just did. If a man became pregnant then he too could decide to have an abortion.
@Snakeyes7 Yes he would. Its just that men dont generally become pregnant.
@Snakeyes7 It has literally nothing to do with opting out of parenthood. Its about bodily autonomy, the right to do with your body as you please without having to justify your actions to anyone else. "Opting out of parenthood" is just a side effect.
Also, you do realize that aside from all the other complications with pregnancies and births, they are also quite dangerous? A pregnancy is a very real risk of death for both baby and mother, especially without the option of an abortion.
>It has literally nothing to do with opting out of parenthood.
That literally the same thing, or at least it is often used as the same thing. They were in control of their bodies to willingly engage in an action that risks pregnancy and now they want to be immune from the consequences.
>Also, you do realize that aside from all the other complications with pregnancies and births, they are also quite dangerous?
Thanks to modern technology, the woman's chance of dying from giving birth for any reason is within the thousandth of a percent (i think it is 0.002%) and that was from at least 20 years ago. Plus even Trump wants an exception for saving the mother's life so what is the problem here?
@Snakeyes7 The right to ones body is unconditional. It does not matter how many times you use this right or for what reason or even if you have a reason in the first place. Its a right.
The chance of death with modern technology takes into account abortion. If you remove abortion then that is going to tank. I think the rate went from 14.5 per capita to 18.9 after abortion was banned in Texas. That is also not accounting for other pregnancy related health consequences.
Also you can't expect me to believe anything Trump says. He is a known liar.
>The right to ones body is unconditional.
Great! Do us all a favor and talk to the Congress about it so that they can work on abolishing the draft too. I don't know if you noticed but being forced to fight in a war you may or may not agree with violates the bodily autonomy of men.
>The chance of death with modern technology takes into account abortion.
No it doesn't, that rate specifically comes from all the times women have died giving birth. Abortion prevents the birth entirely, or at least it is on paper. Some pro-abortion advocates like the former governor of Virginia spoke about post-birth abortions and some states like Colorado and Minnesota allow abortion at any stage.
Even when we account for the increase it is incredibly slight. it has been raised from 0.0145% to 0.0189% chance of death in a pregnancy. So at worst, a woman still has a 99.811% chance of survival.
>Also you can't expect me to believe anything Trump says. He is a known liar.
You don't have to believe him if you don't want to but given his track record on leaving things up to the states like COVID-19 measures, leaving abortion up to the states sounds more likely and a total abortion ban to me.
@Snakeyes7 The draft does not violate your bodily autonomy. Getting forcefully tattooed or whatever would, but not really being forced to do things. Its about the integrity of your body, not your freedom to do things necessarily.
If people have abortions to avoid complications during birth or unwanted births due to health reasons then that would improve the survival of women during birth and be accounted for in those numbers.
You can argue its a small increase but quite frankly that rings hollow considering the right wing lash-out against vaccinations and mask mandates.
Regarding Trump, even if I trusted him (which I dont) I would still not trust his government because its packed with people who would push Trump to ban abortion on a federal level regardless. Besides, its not really in Trumps hands anyway, its a decision that the house and senate makes. If Trump does not cave into their demands he will simply get overruled anyways.
You can't be serious. I have no idea how you could possibly argue that being forced by law to allow the government to send you to a war to fight on their behalf regardless of your feelings on it *isn't* a violation of your bodily autonomy. There is nothing autonomous about this.
That's like forcing women to be breeding cattle to combat a low birthrate. No government will ever go that far. Even North Korea, a brutal and cruel as that place is, won't do that. Instead their leader just sent out a tearful speech begging his people to have children.
>Its about the integrity of your body, not your freedom to do things necessarily.
Tell that to the Vietnam vets who lost body parts because they were forced by law to fight in that war. Go ahead and tell them that them being forced into a war that has no impact on the US regardless of who won and their suffering afterwards wasn't a matter of bodily integrity.
You should also tell that to the women who claim that having a child will take away their freedom to pursue their career. Go ahead and tell them that bodily autonomy is about bodily integrity and not about freedom.
>If people have abortions to avoid complications during birth or unwanted births due to health reasons then that would improve the survival of women during birth and be accounted for in those numbers.
I don't know Texas law but I highly doubt they'd allow a woman to die while giving birth if they can help it so I think there is more to the story behind its rise. It could be incompetence for all we know.
>You can argue its a small increase but quite frankly that rings hollow considering the right wing lash-out against vaccinations and mask mandates.
Why? If anything it is the government and their pet bootlickers who are scared to death of a disease that has a similar survival rate. It sucks to get it, sure, but you are only in danger of it if you had comorbidities like obesity. It was not worth shutting the entire world down and plunging it into an economic disaster in the process.
Even then, the numbers were artificially inflated because you can die in a motorcycle accident and it would be ruled as a covid death because you had it in you but were asymptomatic at the time so you felt fine enough to ride and didn't even know you had it.
>Regarding Trump
Again, you are free to not trust Trump. I personally think that a total abortion ban is against his track record as to what he did on his first term. There are also plenty of things he did I have criticized him on.
Still, even if the members of congress are mostly Republicans, that doesn't mean that they are all pro Trump. They could be more of the establishment shills like Liz Cheney, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney or Mitch McConnel as opposed to the Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gatez or Rand Paul who be more likely to side with him.
@Snakeyes7 Again, you misunderstand what bodily autonomy means. Its not about personal freedom, its about the right to your own body. Things like protection from slavery, conscription and such is a different right.
You can doubt that Texas will let women die or not however much you want, point is that simply allowing the pregnancy to progress increases the odds of negative health consequences which includes death. Having legal abortions and doing them as early as possible means that they are as safe as possible.
Its also nice to see you sprinkle in some covid19 conspiracy theories in there.
And no. A federal abortion ban is not against his track record. He often did things unilaterally such as through executive orders and he very rarely delegated power to lower levels. At most you could argue that he would not personally care which is suspect since the people around him would pressure him into being against it.
And no. I dont hold out hope for other Republicans stopping this either. As I said, banning abortions is a mainstream Republican policy position that far predates Trump. Trump is probably the least interested in banning it but at the same time he is weak and vacillating so is easy for those around him to control his actions and priorities.
>Its not about personal freedom, its about the right to your own body.
So being forced to use your body as a tool for upholding your country's influence in the world through violence, on top of the fact that you are technically considered government property and it is your duty to be fit to fight at any moment isn't a violation of your right to your own body?
And how is abortion about a woman's body? She already used her bodily autonomy to consent to an activity where she risks getting pregnant. Anything after that, how far after that depends on who you ask, it is no longer about her body anymore but the body of a developing human being.
To say that it is about the woman's body either implies that the child is yet another organ of the mother, which plays into the mind of a particular type of child abuser who believes that the child is nothing more than an extention of themselves, or that child IS a part of the woman's body but it is the only organ that magically becomes it's own living thing.
Sorry dude but at some point, there needs to be a line drawn here.
>You can doubt that Texas will let women die or not however much you want
They have to. Any medical professional anywhere must abide by the hypocratic oath "do no harm." If abortion is the only way to save her, they'll do it.
Given that the number of deaths per capita puts the chances of survival as still almost guaranteed, given that the woman's chance of survival during birth used to be a total toss-up, I am starting to wonder if abortion is even involved.
>Its also nice to see you sprinkle in some covid19 conspiracy theories in there.
Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to say that covid19 is not dangerous to the average person? Also, the motorcycle thing actually happened, but they apparently took it off the death tally a couple days later.
www.snopes.com/.../
>He often did things unilaterally such as through executive orders and he very rarely delegated power to lower levels.
Okay and what were those executive orders? Either way, he still has a better track record of doing that than the Biden/Harris administration.
>As I said, banning abortions is a mainstream Republican policy position that far predates Trump
I am mainly talking about the Republicans in congress who mostly just do whatever the democrats want anyway. I think the ones who have these feelings on abortion primarily exist on the more local levels.
>Trump is probably the least interested in banning it but at the same time he is weak and vacillating so is easy for those around him to control his actions and priorities.
I actually agree with this one, this was especially true during 2020 when I guess he felt he had no choice but to allow the lockdowns to persist.
Yes. Your freedom from government control is in fact a different right. What you are proposing is kind of like using the Freedom Of Speech to argue that conscription is illegal because you are forced to say "Sir, yes sir!" during bootcamp. It is an absurd overreach and unnecessary given other rights that actually does cover these cases.
And again, bodily autonomy is a right that you can use whenever you want and retract consent anytime you want. Even if the woman at one point consented to becoming pregnant she has the right to change her mind. Also, objectively speaking the fetus is still part of the womans body which means she has the right to decide what to do with it.
Your shallow understanding of biology is holding you back here. Humans are a multicellular life and we contain colonies of other organisms that coexists and are sometimes vital for the survival of us. Replication and independent survival is not even rare. Just to point out how silly what you just said is, sperm is living and independent from the body and undeniably human. We do not give human rights or personage to sperm even if they "magically becomes it's own living thing."
@Snakeyes7 As for the Hippocratic oath? That is not actually legally binding and is mostly just a fun cultural thing that some institutions apply. What you are thinking of is probably the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics and there are plenty of examples where people have been rejected care and died as a result in USA.
Regarding the risks of covid19, its currently the 5th most deadly pandemic in human history and has infected probably the most humans of any single disease.
Trump made 220 executive orders, here is a list:
en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_executive_orders_by_Donald_Trump
And Biden has done about half as many executive orders as Trump and that includes repealing the ones Trump made. Also Trump used his to circumvent the normal legal and electoral process such as his travel bans which should have gone through the house and senate but instead was unilaterally passed by Trump as an executive order.
I have not seen any Republicans that are willing to actually cooperate with the Democrats. If anything, I have seen a number of Democrats that regularly vote alongside the Republicans but otherwise its a party split during votes.
>Yes. Your freedom from government control is in fact a different right.
Is that not what the pro-choice people are arguing? That the government has no right to tell them what to do with "their body"? They also argue that not giving them the option to abort is "forcing" them to give birth. Their point is that the violation of bodily autonomy is a head of the government overreach hydra.
How is the draft not equally if not a worse version of this? You are forcing men who don't want to fight onto the front lines where many of them will be shot or blown up for some nebulous "greater good". It is excessive government control to use men's bodies in a manner that is not autonomous.
I am not sure how I can make this any more clear.
>And again, bodily autonomy is a right that you can use whenever you want and retract consent anytime you want.
Anytime you want, huh? Even after the deed is done and the woman regretted it the next day so she decided to accuse the man, who knew he had consent the whole time, of rape because she retroactively withdrew that consent?
You are opening up quite the Pandora's box, my guy.
>Even if the woman at one point consented to becoming pregnant she has the right to change her mind.
Why? Are you saying that even women of legal age are still unable to engage in the risk assessment necessary to understand why having sex with men who she doesn't want as a father for her potential children might be a bad idea?
>Also, objectively speaking the fetus is still part of the womans body which means she has the right to decide what to do with it.
How? What other organ has it's own unique DNA and grows up into a separate human being?
>Humans are a multicellular life and we contain colonies of other organisms that coexists and are sometimes vital for the survival of us
Yes but no one is arguing that these bacteria are a part of our bodies because that is absurd. Just like the fetus, they have their own DNA separate from the human they live in and are their own organisms.
> We do not give human rights or personage to sperm even if they "magically becomes it's own living thing."
Are you for real? They don't become a human being on their own. That would mean that sexual reproduction would be unnecessary for humans and men would be giving birth to millions of babies every day.
Have you ever taken sex ed before? You need it.
>there are plenty of examples where people have been rejected care and died as a result in USA.
Well guess what? If healthcare went universal, that will become far more common. Talk to anyone in Canada or the UK and they will tell you.
>Regarding the risks of covid19, its currently the 5th most deadly pandemic in human history and has infected probably the most humans of any single disease.
Yes because it was easy to spread it, and there are more living humans than there ever were in human history, including more old and more morbidly obese people than ever before who are especially vulnerable to it, so NSS.
>Trump made 220 executive orders, here is a list:
Fine but the fact that he did it at least once is one more than any president we have had in decades.
>but instead was unilaterally passed by Trump as an executive order.
Ok so get rid of executive orders then. Presidents were never supposed to be able to do that in the first place and I wasn't a fan of them to begin with. I first heard about them when Obama was president so this long predates Trump.
Really? You have never heard of Lindsay Graham, Chris Christie, Mitch McConnell, the Cheneys, Romney, McCain, George W Bush. The Republicans call those guys neocons, if you haven't heard.
It's called going out for milk and not coming back. Have the brass to do it or don't. Good luck finding any solidarity because they went to get milk and didn't come back. Unless you fix that hole in the boat that ship will always sink day one.
There is a process to these things and women have been there IN people's faces to make things happen for well over hundred years.
That's how it should be, I think that the woman having to give birth has the last word, if by chance she wants to continue the pregnancy, I would not want to have any obligation of maintenance on the unborn child.
In Italy, for example, a man is obliged regardless to support and recognise his child, but a woman is not, she can even give him up for adoption without any kind of problem.
That sounds like a recipe to increase abortions. Why do you think women are the only ones responsible for children, especially if the man or boy had no intention of looking after one when they had sex?
The only good thing that might come of it (assuming the women have access to abortions) is a reduction in murders of women who are or were recently pregnant. That is the #1 cause of death of women in that group in the US.
False. The #1 cause of death in women in the US is heart disease.
That is unfortunately true too. There are women or even both parents out there, that make kids in order to have their governments hand out child support (in Germany its called Kindergeld - Child Money) money for them and they use it for themselves, not for the kid. That's exactly what happened with me.
"Women in the US are more likely to be murdered during pregnancy or soon after childbirth than to die from the three leading obstetric causes of maternal mortality (hypertensive disorders, haemorrhage, or sepsis)."
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2499.full
Of course. States that allow abortion should also allow males to give up their rights and responsibilities to their children. Likewise, states where abortion is illegal should force males to regularly and adequately provide for their children.
just look at the mental gymnastics some users use to justify abortion but say men need to take responsibility lmao
women opting out of motherhood via abortion = ok it's her choice
men opting out of fatherhood via paper abortion = he's a scumbag
even though murdering a child is by far worse than abandoning a child
Exactly
If she's Prego it's ALL HER CHOICE. EVERYTHING. Dude can have and share his opinions but gets ZERO FUCKS over her having or not having kid. Shoulda bagged it. 🤷
This is already a thing. Though hard to achieve. I do believe it should be easier.
Yeah I’ve been saying this as well. Women should have total control over their bodies. And men should have a legal right to an “abortion” of the kid. Non-refundable cancellation. No family court shit later.
If a man doesn't want to support a child they can abstain or wear a f***ing condom.
Women do not have a right to an abortion.
Hey you stole me question! Yea I believe men should be allowed to waive any financial obligations if they're not w/ the mother.
It’s something that definitely deserves debate
Good point!!!
Yeap
Right.
Yes!
You can also add your opinion below!
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 
Most Helpful Opinions