If a woman can abort a child, should a man be able to initiate the abortion?

[schuylaar]

Lets just get to the main point guys, no one wants to wear a rubber.

ergo..no choice..see how this works boys?

 

[Eye of Horus]

I think you should have the ability to fuck your wild oates out before getting someone pregnant, theres no way in hell your stopping these kids from going in raw. If we were making good strides the population wouldn't be so fucking high.

 

[kelly4]

ergo..no choice..see how this works boys?

Keep your ideas and morals away from my dick. That's right, MY dick! If you women don't want to get pregnant, take the pill, get tied, or don't have sex with an unprotected man.

Just keep your silly ideas away from my wang.

 

[WORDZofWORDZCRAFT]

i think if they make the baby and the guy wants an abortion but the female doesn't the guy should still pay child support because I have a soul unlike all you heathens.

 

[Harrekin]

I think no. But i also think that if the woman refuses a mans wish for an abortion, then there should be no requirement for the man to then pay for the child for the next few decades. If a woman is so adamant that she have a baby, regardless of whether the father want it or is going to stay around, then she should bloody well do so herself.

This is an interesting ideal, and extremely logical.

I'm stealing this for my personal philosophy.

 

[Harrekin]

i think if they make the baby and the guy wants an abortion but the female doesn't the guy should still pay child support because I have a soul unlike all you heathens.

God made the baby, God should pay for it.

If he didn't want you to concieve children he'd give you shitty swimmers.

 

[UncleReemis]

This is an interesting ideal, and extremely logical.

I'm stealing this for my personal philosophy.

What if dudes just start getting out of necessary child support by saying "I wanted an abortion" or "I want an abortion"?

It's still half his fault for having the child in the first place. So now every man facing consequences he didn't intend can just abort from child support now too? If he doesn't plan to stick around, shitty but whatever. At least he could cover his half of the financial responsibility, regardless of whether he wanted the kid aborted, because it's half his genes walking around. To simplify, why inhibit the chances of a newborn having a healthy childhood without poverty ON TOP of not having a father around?

Not trying to insult anyone, just curious.

 

[ChesusRice]

Fortunatly they have made a Labor simulator for anyone that wants to know what pregnancy is like

Unfortunatly. No man has survived it yet

 

[kelly4]

i think if they make the baby and the guy wants an abortion but the female doesn't the guy should still pay child support because I have a soul unlike all you heathens.

 

[racerboy71]

What if dudes just start getting out of necessary child support by saying "I wanted an abortion" or "I want an abortion"?

It's still half his fault for having the child in the first place. So now every man facing consequences he didn't intend can just abort from child support now too? If he doesn't plan to stick around, shitty but whatever. At least he could cover his half of the financial responsibility, regardless of whether he wanted the kid aborted, because it's half his genes walking around. To simplify, why inhibit the chances of a newborn having a healthy childhood without poverty ON TOP of not having a father around?

Not trying to insult anyone, just curious.

i agree, don't want to pay child support, don't have unprotected sex and risk having a baby you don't want.. it's rather simple ime..

 

[tip top toker]

This is an interesting ideal, and extremely logical.

I'm stealing this for my personal philosophy.

It just makes sense IMO. How is it logical for the man to have absolutely no say in it. If he wants tonkeep the child, he has no choice in the matter, he ends up losing it. So if the woman is to have all the power, the ability to make him lose his child, or have a child he doesn't want, thennif she makes the choice to keep it, SHE made the choice to keep it, the man had no legal say in the matter, so why should she get to make a choice and notbhave to live with the consequences?

I'd love to learn how much of child support payment actually gets spent directly on the child in question. So much bs in the whole thing.

 

[racerboy71]

It just makes sense IMO. How is it logical for the man to have absolutely no say in it. If he wants tonkeep the child, he has no choice in the matter, he ends up losing it. So if the woman is to have all the power, the ability to make him lose his child, or have a child he doesn't want, thennif she makes the choice to keep it, SHE made the choice to keep it, the man had no legal say in the matter, so why should she get to make a choice and notbhave to live with the consequences?

I'd love to learn how much of child support payment actually gets spent directly on the child in question. So much bs in the whole thing.

but imo, the man has choice. wrap it up, or don't have sex with someone that you don't want to have a child with.. of course, condoms break from time to time, don't get me wrong, but i think that's a very small % of the time in reality..
the minute you go in raw dog and ejeculate inside of a fertile female, all of your options are out the window imvho.. just the way it is..

 

[tip top toker]

What if dudes just start getting out of necessary child support by saying "I wanted an abortion" or "I want an abortion"?

It's still half his fault for having the child in the first place. So now every man facing consequences he didn't intend can just abort from child support now too? If he doesn't plan to stick around, shitty but whatever. At least he could cover his half of the financial responsibility, regardless of whether he wanted the kid aborted, because it's half his genes walking around. To simplify, why inhibit the chances of a newborn having a healthy childhood without poverty ON TOP of not having a father around?

Not trying to insult anyone, just curious.

It is an idealistic idea, and yes, it would be complicated. But why not have a certain time frame following conception within which to place a legal objection?

If he is 50% responsible, then how can it be a fair system if he doesn't get a say in the future events?

 

[UncleReemis]

It just makes sense IMO. How is it logical for the man to have absolutely no say in it. If he wants tonkeep the child, he has no choice in the matter, he ends up losing it. So if the woman is to have all the power, the ability to make him lose his child, or have a child he doesn't want, thennif she makes the choice to keep it, SHE made the choice to keep it, the man had no legal say in the matter, so why should she get to make a choice and notbhave to live with the consequences?

I'd love to learn how much of child support payment actually gets spent directly on the child in question. So much bs in the whole thing.

I see your points, but not all cases are like that.

What if the single mom isn't a druggy deadbeat loser who is so young, she's still trying to make her way into a stable career? She will obviously need financial support considering how much money it takes to sufficiently provide for a child. Maybe many of these single mothers like this don't have time to make money, considering parenting a newborn is like a full time job already.

 

[tip top toker]

but imo, the man has choice. wrap it up, or don't have sex with someone that you don't want to have a child with.. of course, condoms break from time to time, don't get me wrong, but i think that's a very small % of the time in reality..
the minute you go in raw dog and ejeculate inside of a fertile female, all of your options are out the window imvho.. just the way it is..

Why should everything be based on a condom? In sex Ed, we were taught about all the various forms of female contraception which were stated to be statistically the same with regard to fertility as condoms, be it implants or the pill. But hey, a friend got a coil implanted. She got pregnant. My gf had s coil implanted. She got pregnant. Ifnthe man is held responsible over whether he does or doesnt wear a condom, why shouldn't a woman be responsible for whether she does or doesn't use contraception herself? Why is it so different? And by that argument, the woman has a choice, pill it up, get an implant, or don't sleep with someone who could potentially impregnate you.

Here's a controversial one then. If a woman gets too drunk, she can claim rape etc, and there are often convictions based on this argument, the verdict is she did not consent due to being too drunk etc. So if a an gets that drunk, and impregnates someone, why couldn't he use that as an excuse for not being forced into taking responsibility.

 

[UncleReemis]

It is an idealistic idea, and yes, it would be complicated. But why not have a certain time frame following conception within which to place a legal objection?

If he is 50% responsible, then how can it be a fair system if he doesn't get a say in the future events?

I see, but the only way to fairly do that would be for the dude to bring a legal document to bed with him, have her sign it before sticking it in. That's way out of social norm district, and probably would get you rejected. If you made a legal objection AFTER ejaculating, it changes the situation completely. Now that you've waited until after the act of planting your seed in a woman to sign a legal objection agreement (w/e you want to call it), it becomes null because you can't take back what you did if she declines your agreement. So now that I got that high ass situation out in words, how else could you get a legal objection to work fairly for both parties? I mean... unless people are actually cool with doing paperwork while they're all hot and bothered.

 

[tip top toker]

I see your points, but not all cases are like that.

What if the single mom isn't a druggy deadbeat loser who is so young, she's still trying to make her way into a stable career? She will obviously need financial support considering how much money it takes to sufficiently provide for a child. Maybe many of these single mothers like this don't have time to make money, considering parenting a newborn is like a full time job already.

Well logically you would get an abortion if you couldn't care for the child? Why she should be able to shun reality on the basis she will get free money? What if the father dies, or just doesn't pay. She has now brought a child into the world and she can't afford to bring it up.

 

[tip top toker]

I see, but the only way to fairly do that would be for the dude to bring a legal document to bed with him, have her sign it before sticking it in. That's way out of social norm district, and probably would get you rejected. If you made a legal objection AFTER ejaculating, it changes the situation completely. Now that you've waited until after the act of planting your seed in a woman to sign a legal objection agreement (w/e you want to call it), it becomes null because you can't take back what you did if she declines your agreement. So now that I got that high ass situation out in words, how else could you get a legal objection to work fairly for both parties? I mean... unless people are actually cool with doing paperwork while they're all hot and bothered.

I more meant a time frame such as there is for abortion. As in you can't just wait till its born then do a runner. If the man objects within the abortion time frame, them the woman now has the choice to proceed or not. A woman can always find a new man, not to mention when they do, the father still pays, but the father can't not have the child.

 

[UncleReemis]

Well logically you would get an abortion if you couldn't care for the child? Why she should be able to shun reality on the basis she will get free money? What if the father dies, or just doesn't pay. She has now brought a child into the world and she can't afford to bring it up.

You're forgetting that not all moms believe it's moral to abort their children, let alone have the guts to actually go through with it. I've seen pregnancy change people; most women become instantly attached to their unborn children.

I more meant a time frame such as there is for abortion. As in you can't just wait till its born then do a runner. If the man objects within the abortion time frame, them the woman now has the choice to proceed or not. A woman can always find a new man, not to mention when they do, the father still pays, but the father can't not have the child.

What if abortion isn't an option? What if she refuses to do that to her child? Then what? It's a fair way to feel.

 

[tip top toker]

You're forgetting that not all moms believe it's moral to abort their children, let alone have the guts to actually go through with it. I've seen pregnancy change people; most women become instantly attached to their unborn children.



What if abortion isn't an option? What if she refuses to do that to her child? Then what? It's a fair way to feel.

In which case, see my response to RB. If she is not the type who agrees a the abortion, then like a man has a choice to wear a condom, she has a choice to protect herself just as equally.