Male's right to abortion.

[CaféAuLait]

Yes, deadbeat Conservative dads. I don't see Liberal Dads trying to make the argument that they should be allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children simply because the women they are getting pregnant have the option to abort their pregnancy.

Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.


Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no? Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.

Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".

The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," mentality.

And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.

That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.

You keep wanting to make this a conservative issue. The articles I posted are from LIBERAL websites and journalists, ( TIME And Huffington Post) FEMALES, in fact, questioning this inequality. I know I am different from a male in many ways. I know I can bear children while he cant. This has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-choice. It is about the issue if a woman can abort a child because they are financially unable to care for a child a man should have the same choice.

If we are demanding equality in todays day and age, then we must be willing to do the same for our male counterparts in my opinion. We make a decision to have sex and we KNOW what the outcome is just as much as a male does. We can make any choice we want, they cant and that hardly seems fair to me.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.

I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.

Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.

yeah so

that is the way it is

as a male if you do not want kids

you have a couple of options

first think with the head on your shoulders

not the one in the pants

or get fixed

snip snip

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child

by

1- refraining
or
2 getting fixed

absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety

of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped


If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

the male should assume that is a possibility as well

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

they do

the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there

will not be a pregnancy

or roll the dice

 

[Faun]

It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.

I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.

Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.

yeah so

that is the way it is

as a male if you do not want kids

you have a couple of options

first think with the head on your shoulders

not the one in the pants

or get fixed

snip snip

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

She also knows that if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is an option for her. Men also know if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is not an option for them. So both men and women enter that agreement with that information and should take the appropriate measures to avoid a pregnancy, if they don't want to be a parent.

 

[Faun]

Which 'conservative dads' are you speaking of? I am curious. Your argument is just as silly as me saying those women who chose to abort are "deadbeat women" since they ARE "allowed to "opt out" of financially supporting their own children" by way of choice. Abortion, morning after pill, adoption, safe haven, etc.


Are you trying to shame a man for wanting the same rights as a female when it comes to choice about an unborn child? A female can opt out for any reason she wishes. A man on the other hand, must abide by her wish. Equal rights under the law, yes or no? Or is it equal rights when women have the only choice in the matter. Even when a man wants to go through with the pregnancy they can't. And they can't decide not to after a woman has made her choice.

Ms. West wrote it very eloquently "The right to feel the weight of decisions without being sheltered by gender is one that has not been fully realized, and some women in the pro-life/pro-choice debate seem to negligently cast aside the opinions of potential fathers as intrusive, irrelevant and patriarchal".

The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," mentality.

And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.

That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.

You keep wanting to make this a conservative issue. The articles I posted are from LIBERAL websites and journalists, ( TIME And Huffington Post) FEMALES, in fact, questioning this inequality. I know I am different from a male in many ways. I know I can bear children while he cant. This has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-choice. It is about the issue if a woman can abort a child because they are financially unable to care for a child a man should have the same choice.

If we are demanding equality in todays day and age, then we must be willing to do the same for our male counterparts in my opinion. We make a decision to have sex and we KNOW what the outcome is just as much as a male does. We can make any choice we want, they cant and that hardly seems fair to me.

I haven't been to those sites and have only seen the argument being made on forums such as this one. And what I've seen are Conservative men looking to create an "opt out" clause for men to avoid their financial responsibilities. When I see Liberal men lining up like that, I will view it as non-political.

So far, that has not been my observation.

 

[CaféAuLait]

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.

yeah so

that is the way it is

as a male if you do not want kids

you have a couple of options

first think with the head on your shoulders

not the one in the pants

or get fixed

snip snip

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child

by

1- refraining
or
2 getting fixed

absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety

of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped


If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

the male should assume that is a possibility as well

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

they do

the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there

will not be a pregnancy

or roll the dice

If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.

Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.

Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.

 

[thanatos144]

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child

by

1- refraining
or
2 getting fixed

absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety

of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped


If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

the male should assume that is a possibility as well

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

they do

the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there

will not be a pregnancy

or roll the dice

If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.

Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.

Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.

What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets

tapatalk post

 

[CaféAuLait]

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway.

yeah so

that is the way it is

as a male if you do not want kids

you have a couple of options

first think with the head on your shoulders

not the one in the pants

or get fixed

snip snip

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

She knows full well that any man she has sex with is a potential father to her child.

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

She also knows that if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is an option for her. Men also know if sex results in a pregnancy, abortion is not an option for them. So both men and women enter that agreement with that information and should take the appropriate measures to avoid a pregnancy, if they don't want to be a parent.

Exactly I realize it's not an option, and that is why I am discussing this. And as I said above it is about makes who made a choice to use condoms and a pregnancy occurred and or a woman decided to get pregnant by claiming she was on the pill when she was not, etc.

 

[CaféAuLait]

The people on this forum, for example ... the ones championing a man's right to be a deadbeat dad and escape his financial responsibilities for his own child -- are Conservatives. And it's borne largely as a punishment to women for having the right to abort a pregnancy. It's the age old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," mentality.

And a man will never have the same rights as a woman for the simple fact that we are biologically engineered differently. There is no law which can balance that natural inequity. Men are not capable of getting pregnant, whereas, women are. So the two genders are built with the inherent inequality which will never allow any man to be on an equal level as a woman.

That's why the absolute answer to this "opt out" solution for deadbeat Conservative dads, which I'm fairly certain I saw towards the beginning of this thread and every one like it, is ....... when men can get pregnant, they will have the same option to abort their pregnancy in the exact same fashion women currently have.

You keep wanting to make this a conservative issue. The articles I posted are from LIBERAL websites and journalists, ( TIME And Huffington Post) FEMALES, in fact, questioning this inequality. I know I am different from a male in many ways. I know I can bear children while he cant. This has nothing to do with pro-choice or anti-choice. It is about the issue if a woman can abort a child because they are financially unable to care for a child a man should have the same choice.

If we are demanding equality in todays day and age, then we must be willing to do the same for our male counterparts in my opinion. We make a decision to have sex and we KNOW what the outcome is just as much as a male does. We can make any choice we want, they cant and that hardly seems fair to me.

I haven't been to those sites and have only seen the argument being made on forums such as this one. And what I've seen are Conservative men looking to create an "opt out" clause for men to avoid their financial responsibilities. When I see Liberal men lining up like that, I will view it as non-political.

So far, that has not been my observation.

They are not "sites" I linked to the articles, where the women ( liberal women) are making this argument. There are liberal men who agree in oped's as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

This is not just the males responsibility, females can get snipped as well, yes and avoid 'choice'?

yes but as a male i can only be 100 percent sure of not fathering a child

by

1- refraining
or
2 getting fixed

absent a medical record there is not a 100 percent surety

of not fathering a child because a female claimed to be snipped


If a woman has sex with a man, she knows full well that pregnancy is a possible outcome.

the male should assume that is a possibility as well

IF men have equal responsibility, they should have equal rights. A choice.

they do

the choice is either to refrain or take precaution it insure there

will not be a pregnancy

or roll the dice

If you read back, my argument is about men who have taken responsibility and a pregnancy has happened after using protection and or men who have been "tricked" into pregnancy, which does happen at times.

Women have an abundance of methods at their fingertips, abortion, condoms, RU486, the morning after pill, surgical sterilants, safe haven, adoption, etc. In fact there is a big problem with Utah as we speak who strip fathers of their rights when women decide to adopt a child out where a man has explicitly said he wants to father this child. Google it, it's pretty crazy, but I digress. It just seems to me, men and their feelings are disregarded, too easily and their choices are not as diverse as females are.

Men should have a choice, especially if in a relationship where they have taken precautions and or expressed they do not want children.

What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets

tapatalk post

What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails
That's what little boys are made of !"
What are little girls made of?
"Sugar and spice and all things nice
That's what little girls are made of!

 

[KevinWestern]

( emphasis added)

Yet, women have that choice, yes?

I'm torn on the issue. If the male was responsible, used contraception and an accidental pregnancy was the result and or if a woman becomes pregnant on purpose or against the explicit wishes of the man, he should be given a choice.

How something like this would take place, I've no clue though.

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood - when it comes to women, but it is for men. I see people say, "if men don't want an accidental child then he should have a vasectomy". Its simple to say, but men don't have access to clinics like PP where they can walk in and walk out simply, in fact many doctors won't perform a vasectomy on a man if he does not have children or is not 27years plus. ( this is the way it is at military hospitals). Sure they have access to condoms, accidents happen, and women have access to the same condoms.

I feel this way as a female. I make the choice, either way. As the author of the article wrote, "Responsibility and equality should not be mutually exclusive".

Again, due to differences in anatomy the men are simply out of luck. Whether or not they become a future parent rests ultimately on the decision of the female (and if she chooses to abort what is inside her).

Also, I don't think you addressed my question:
We have a deadbeat dad problem right now (especially in the minority community). How do you think a law stating that men can simply say "I don't want to raise a child" - and that's it, no more responsibility - would assist with those statistics?

 

[Dragonlady]

What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets

tapatalk post

It always comes down to this kind if misogyny with the so called pro-life crowd, doesn't it?

Women are baby-killing, gold diggers who use their sexuality to take advantage of men.

It's only been since the 1970's when DNA testing could definitively establish paternity. Prior to that time, testing could determine definitively if you weren't the father, but on the other side, if you could be the father.

So your post is a lie. Generation after generation of women have NOT been told that a man is a wallet. We've been told that there is no guarantee that a man will accept responsibility, and even when he does, no way of ensuring that he will continue to pay once he marries and has other children.

If you choose to have this child, women are told, generation after generation, to expect no financial assistance from the father because that has been the reality.

 

[thanatos144]

What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets

tapatalk post

It always comes down to this kind if misogyny with the so called pro-life crowd, doesn't it?

Women are baby-killing, gold diggers who use their sexuality to take advantage of men.

It's only been since the 1970's when DNA testing could definitively establish paternity. Prior to that time, testing could determine definitively if you weren't the father, but on the other side, if you could be the father.

So your post is a lie. Generation after generation of women have NOT been told that a man is a wallet. We've been told that there is no guarantee that a man will accept responsibility, and even when he does, no way of ensuring that he will continue to pay once he marries and has other children.

If you choose to have this child, women are told, generation after generation, to expect no financial assistance from the father because that has been the reality.

You need a dictionary

tapatalk post

 

[CaféAuLait]

It's complex, I agree, and I totally see your point. But the two decisions don't hold equal weight:

1.) The man can say "screw this I don't want the baby" and be sipping drinks in Mexico the next day without a worry in the world.
2.) The woman (if she doesn't want the baby) must make the terrible decision of ALSO having to allow doctors poison her unborn (or surgically kill) that which is growing inside of her, and go through all the abortion procedures, risks, ect.

I think it's just a fact of life - to me, anyways - that the woman has the ultimate say on what happens to the baby growing inside of her, and if the baby is born both parties are responsible for its well being.

And rationally, think about it Cafe. You think we have a "deadbeat" dad problem now, what do you think is going to happen when men now have the option to absolve all responsibility by simply saying "I don't want it, abort!", lol? Any sort of scenario I can think of in that vein just seems to be a bad idea. I envision a lot of idiots having a lot of kids with a bunch of different women because they know they can simply "duck out" at any point they want during the pregnancy.

However, I'm open to hearing some of your thoughts.

Yet, the issue stands a woman can do just that. She can take the risk and say "I don't want it abort it". A man, OTOH, can not. It is morally reprehensible to force someone into parental obligations against their will--an argument we hear from those who are pro-choice.

We recognize this fact when it comes to women - it's wrong to force a woman into parental obligations against her will, which is why women may abort, or even abandon a child and walk away leaving a baby (no questions asked) at a fire station or hospital- up to a certain age in most states.

Where is the same for a man? Why can't he walk away, no questions asked?

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood - when it comes to women, but it is for men. I see people say, "if men don't want an accidental child then he should have a vasectomy". Its simple to say, but men don't have access to clinics like PP where they can walk in and walk out simply, in fact many doctors won't perform a vasectomy on a man if he does not have children or is not 27years plus. ( this is the way it is at military hospitals). Sure they have access to condoms, accidents happen, and women have access to the same condoms.

I feel this way as a female. I make the choice, either way. As the author of the article wrote, "Responsibility and equality should not be mutually exclusive".

Again, due to differences in anatomy the men are simply out of luck. Whether or not they become a future parent rests ultimately on the decision of the female (and if she chooses to abort what is inside her).

Also, I don't think you addressed my question:
We have a deadbeat dad problem right now (especially in the minority community). How do you think a law stating that men can simply say "I don't want to raise a child" - and that's it, no more responsibility - would assist with those statistics?

You seem to be over simplifying what I said. As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties. The statistics are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.

If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation) but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.

That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What it boils down to is generations of teaching kids men are cheating dogs. Girls are taught from a young age to have no respect for men and to treat them as breathing wallets

tapatalk post

It always comes down to this kind if misogyny with the so called pro-life crowd, doesn't it?

Women are baby-killing, gold diggers who use their sexuality to take advantage of men.

It's only been since the 1970's when DNA testing could definitively establish paternity. Prior to that time, testing could determine definitively if you weren't the father, but on the other side, if you could be the father.

So your post is a lie. Generation after generation of women have NOT been told that a man is a wallet. We've been told that there is no guarantee that a man will accept responsibility, and even when he does, no way of ensuring that he will continue to pay once he marries and has other children.

If you choose to have this child, women are told, generation after generation, to expect no financial assistance from the father because that has been the reality.

The reason babies look like their father's is that we already know who the mother is ...

Our society accepts dead beat dads. The tea potty even elected one.

The title of this thread is,

Male's right to abortion.

The answer is, as soon as men get pregnant, they will have the right to abortion.

Not until then.

 

[KevinWestern]

You seem to be over simplifying what I said. As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties. The statistics are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.

If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation) but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.

That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.

Ideally BOTH parents are involved in the abortion conversation, but if the mom wants to keep the baby and the dad does not obviously we can’t force a woman to abort – right? I think that option is totally off the table (I’m guessing you agree).

So what’s the other option – give the father the right to “back out”? How is that going to improve the quality of life of the child? I don’t understand where you’re coming from (perhaps elaborate)?

 

[BobPlumb]

You seem to be over simplifying what I said. As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties. The statistics are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.

If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation) but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.

That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.

Ideally BOTH parents are involved in the abortion conversation, but if the mom wants to keep the baby and the dad does not obviously we can’t force a woman to abort – right? I think that option is totally off the table (I’m guessing you agree).

So what’s the other option – give the father the right to “back out”? How is that going to improve the quality of life of the child? I don’t understand where you’re coming from (perhaps elaborate)?

When a woman has an abortion, no one is concerned about the life of the child!

 

[KevinWestern]

You seem to be over simplifying what I said. As I said before there should be dialog and choice for both parties. The statistics are appalling for those children who are raised in poverty and without a father. Those statistics show unplanned children face abuse, poverty, abandonment, and neglect.

If that potential father has no means, no education, is young, etc the burden will not be on he father or the mother ( assuming she is in the same financial situation) but the child, it will be the child who suffers the most. It won't be society suffering, who will most likely pick up the tab for some teen pregnancy or some jerk of a guy who just does not care. It will be the child.

That's child's quality of life is important when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, BOTH parents must be included in the dialogue and decision. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers.

Ideally BOTH parents are involved in the abortion conversation, but if the mom wants to keep the baby and the dad does not obviously we can’t force a woman to abort – right? I think that option is totally off the table (I’m guessing you agree).

So what’s the other option – give the father the right to “back out”? How is that going to improve the quality of life of the child? I don’t understand where you’re coming from (perhaps elaborate)?

When a woman has an abortion, no one is concerned about the life of the child!

I'm not arguing in favor of abortion, lol. I'm just working with the conversation at hand here. I'm not a big abortion fan personally unless it's a case that the mom's life is seriously threatened or if she was raped. Even then I have my own opinions, but feel like the woman should be able to decide for herself.

But yes, that's a good point I was going to make. If we're worried about "quality of life" of a child, obviously abortion is worse than growing up in poverty, in a broken home, etc, because the child will be dead!

 

[Borillar]

It is the position of prochoice people that abortion is not murder. The fetus before viability outside the womb does not have a right to life that trumps the will of the potential mother. Thus, the pregnant female may legally use abortion as a method of birth control if she decides that she does not want the responsibilities of a child for any reason. She may even get an abortion against the wishes of the potential father.

However, if the male does not want a child, the female can go through with the pregnancy anyway. The male currently has no choice at this point but the female does. The male could be on the hook for 18 years of child support if the female has the baby.

I purpose that if a fetus is not a baby, not a legally protected human life, then the male should be able to op out of his responsibility for the pregnancy. He should be able to legally inform the female that if she does not use the available contraception of abortion, then she is responsible for the child that is born as a consequence of the pregnancy.

Prochoice people, am I wrong? Why or why not?

You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.

Both parties can do that.

2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.

I don't believe there is any way at present for a man to get out of that financial responsibility for his offspring. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

 

[Walt]

And yet the mothers ability to kill his child is not just as messed up?

Men should have a right

You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.

If the woman did not want a baby she has the same responsibility not to get pregnant. The only correct, equal and just way is to give BOTH the choice. As it is if a man wants the child he has no choice about the woman getting the abortion. So it is only fair that if the woman wants the child and the man does not. He should have the choice to not be responsible for a child. Same as the woman has.

 

[KevinWestern]

Men should have a right

You have a right to not put the unwanted baby there in the first place.

If the woman did not want a baby she has the same responsibility not to get pregnant. The only correct, equal and just way is to give BOTH the choice. As it is if a man wants the child he has no choice about the woman getting the abortion. So it is only fair that if the woman wants the child and the man does not. He should have the choice to not be responsible for a child. Same as the woman has.

I mean, what the heck is going to deter a guy from getting 50 women pregnant? The deterrents on the female side are obvious (they'd have to face pregnancy/birth, or a horrible abortion), but what about men?

Even today, with laws that make dads pay for their children we still have an epidemic of Deadbeat dads (especially in poor, urban areas). How will your proposal affect this situation?