Abortion: does the man have a say?

Yeah, I understand that you feel that way, but he went through the process of conception (i.e., having the sex) and therefore is a liable party. If this wasn't a child, but instead a robbery and he was, for example, the get-away-driver, he is still a liable party to the theft because he partook. Sure, it unfortunate that they now have to pay for the next 18 years, but again don't have sex with strangers if you don't want that to happen.

However, if I could throw out the best possible solution for any of these issues: Male Birth control. That way it's not solely up to this woman who may be bat-shit crazy not to get pregnant. If men could take a pill that stops them for reproducing for a period of time then that would be absolutely *perfect*.

Using the same analogy, here's how todays system works:
You helped make a plan 9 months before a robbery. 2 months in, you regret, pulling out and telling the government about it. They don't do anything. Then, 9 months later, the other part conducts the robbery alone. Then, even though you told the government about it and said you no longer had anything to do with it, you get the exact same fine as the other part along with the punishment.
I doubt that's fair.

But that's not really an accurate analogy. Because having the sex that conceived a child isn't like 'planning' a robbery. One more accurate would be:

You rob someone along with a second person. 2-3 months later you feel guilty and tell the police, the police do nothing. Another 7-6 months later the person who you robs steps forward and says he was robbed and points out you and your partner. You claim, because you already told the police you aren't liable. But the fact is that you are because you did partake in the action. Which is fair.

Basically: you don't want to go to jail? Don't rob people. You don't want children? Don't fuck people.
Or, if you do, be a man and deal with it.

...

......

*facepalm*

A: The robbery is a symbol for damage.
B: The act of sex alone does not incur any damage.
C: Just like a plan can be aborted, a pregnancy can be aborted, causing no damage.
D: After the robbery has occurred, you can no longer abort, as it has already been done.
HENCE: The robbery equates to the birth, as the birth is the point-of-no-return as is the robbery. As long as there is an option to abort, it will indicate a situation before the point-of-no-return, AKA, the robbery.

How can you say that the "act of sex alone does not incur damages"? If the woman gets pregnant that is the "damage". You are completely missing the point of my argument. Never the less, I'm done. We disagree.

I've already said the whole "don't have sex if you can't handle the consequences" will always be a bullshit argument. All animals, humans included, are designed for sex. It's pure biology.

A robbery is a slippery slope argument, because unlike robberies, you have a slew of options to avoid having a child or if you do plan on having a child, even more options on how to take care of it.

The point is that while it takes two people to make the baby, only one person has to carry it and deal with the physical, emotional, and hormonal changes. The man "dealing with it" would be collateral damage. A man will never understand what pregnancy or abortion might mean to a woman. Yes, men can feel both joy and sadness and a slew of other emotions, but they never have to deal with the stigmas or actuality of being pregnant.

Get back on topic.

Laa said:

You're not really debating against my position, as much as you're just listing up how things are right now.

It's a true injustice to force a man to pay up for a child he never wanted to begin with. Today, men's rights are thought to be ridiculous and obscure, cus' feminism.

Click to expand...

I think you're also missing the point of actual feminism - which is equality amongst the sexes and not "women ruling men." Those are called "Feminazis."

However, have you read other state laws involving men's rights? Did you know that in a lot of states, if a woman is raped and has a baby from it, that the rapist has parental rights to see that child and the mother?

Did you also know that once upon a time, if a man raped a woman, he was then supposed to marry her?

There should be more equality amongst parents, especially since it involves children, but I've seen that women who give up custody still have to pay child support. It's not just "boo-fucking-hoo men suffer."

The man has a say if he plans on sticking around and helping to raise it. His morals or his religion or his "squeemishness" shouldn't be a deciding factor IF he doesn't plan on sticking around and helping out.

However, the fact is, he is not going to carry it. He is not going to feel any of the changes so the choice is ultimately hers.

When I mentioned feminism, I was talking about symbolism instead of the actual movement. As women has had to fight for their rights very recently, women's rights have become 'normal' to fight for, while fighting for men's rights seem off or weird for some.
Not really the main staple of me argument though.

And of course, all uneven ends should be straightened out as much as possible. It's definitely not fair that the rapist can have a claim on the woman's child if she decides to get a child after having being raped; though even then, the rapist shouldn't be forced to pay either, as the choice is ultimately hers. As stated earlier, when you get to make a choice, you get to take the responsibilities that goes along with that choice.

@Cyanide: I'd like you to clarify how pregnancy can be considered damage.

Did you really just say the rapist shouldn't have to pay? Are you serious?

Your blatant ignorance is astounding.

She didn't choose to get raped and pregnant but he chose to rape her.

For whatever reason she keeps the baby, he definitely should pay. It wasn't a mutual agreement. Her life has changed in multiple ways and he is ultimately the cause of it.

Not every woman immediately thinks of abortion after being raped and getting pregnant as a result. And believe it or not, you are more likely to get pregnant from rape.

Your idealism is Warped. And people say rape culture doesnt exist.

Holy blistering barnacles, chill. I'm here to debate to refine my opinions, not because I want to protect my rights as a future rapist.

Besides that, I agree, I might have gotten ahead of meself. So, if we except criminals and the like, the main idea still stands strong, right?

Debate then and expect to have your words debated.

What is your main point? You've drifted off topic quite a bit.

I was referring to the 50% of your post that couldn't be considered debating.

My main point was stated in my first two posts around page 2.

Your main point is that women want men to suffer or that men should be able to shed all responsibility. It's an option, its called giving up all parental rights through the courts. If you knock someone up and then claim she should have been more careful instead of yourself, that's bogus and passing blame. As I said, repeatedly, unless he plans on sticking around, he doesn't have a say. Both parents are both held responsible, not just the mother or the father.

Also, you defended rapists, clear as day, so I'm gonna say no to that. I also did not call you a future rapist, but when I called you out, you back-pedaled.

The topic is if a man had a say in whether or not to have a baby/an abortion. I suggest you get back to it.

My main point isn't that all women are evil feminists.
My main point is that a man should be able to abort, in a manner similar to that which a female can do. No, it's not an option as he still has to pay.
No, he does not get a say even if he stays around. What is he going to do, hammer the baby to death if the female doesn't agree with him? Get the government to forcefully abort the child? I've already answered that part, which is why I moved on. No, the man doesn't get a say in that part.

Obviously, rapists can go flip themselves. I was trying to be consistent, although I didn't think things through. Obviously, that calls for a retraction if my statement is stupid, offending or the like. It was. However, if I had actually held that belief at heart, your approach wouldn't had done much but to anger me, making me defend said point even more, leading to a futile debate with no fruit to be harvested.

Limiting debate leads to ignorance. If two things are tightly related, the relation should be taken seriously instead of being discarded. Otherwise, you end up with a useless and mostly philosophical debate that won't even give any proper philosophical answers, as you throw out the factor of reality.

Philosophy doesn't provide answers: it is meant to stir thought.

You really think he doesn't have a,say if he sticks around? I think two, romantically and sexually active adults can figure out if they want children together.

But it seems it'll be consistently disagreed with.

Most of the time, yes, they can handle it themselves. It isn't the majority of people that commit crimes or goes psycho after all; it'll be a select group of people that simply lives to mess with other's lives or have so many problems that their very nature causes problems for others. Even then, a lot of laws exists to deal with this small group of people.

Well, by now, I think I've debated this for long enough, so I'll retire.

If the man doesn't want the kid he should at least not have to pay child support.

Why? Why punish a child like that?

Why is it okay for a woman to get an abortion when a man doesn't, but its not if a man doesn't want the child or pay child support.

You want the right to decide, get pregnant yourself. If you carry the potential for life inside you that could possibly kill you, then you decide what to do with it.

Also if the father ends up with the child the mother is liable for child support. Child support is simple, it's there to support the child. Don't want to do that then wear a condom and make sure you can trust your sex partners.

Why is the man liable to pay child support? When my mom raised me on her after my dad left around four or five, she didn't need child support even though she could of took my dad to court for not paying it.

Vic Rattlehead said:

Why is the man liable to pay child support? When my mom raised me on her after my dad left around four or five, she didn't need child support even though she could of took my dad to court for not paying it.

Click to expand...

This question was answered right here:

Nihilistic_Impact said:

You want the right to decide, get pregnant yourself. If you carry the potential for life inside you that could possibly kill you, then you decide what to do with it.

Also if the father ends up with the child the mother is liable for child support. Child support is simple, it's there to support the child. Don't want to do that then wear a condom and make sure you can trust your sex partners.

Click to expand...

The man is responsible for what he helped create. Can people please stop asking this incredibly ignorant question now?

I'm not actually sure if it's Vic's statement is as ignorant as it initially seems.
Personally I'm pro-abortion, and pro-child support.

But the provided answer of:

Nihilistic_Impact said:

Also if the father ends up with the child the mother is liable for child support. Child support is simple, it's there to support the child. Don't want to do that then wear a condom and make sure you can trust your sex partners.

Click to expand...

Isn't actually that fair. While I don't intend to go back to the silly "Don't want children, don't have sex" nonsense.
The reverse could be said for the above case, where women are told "If they don't want to deal with children, they should make men wear condoms."

I'm finding it a bit unfairly biased right now with people saying men shouldn't have a 'voice' in the matter, yet have to take responsibility for their actions. My personal stance is that they should have both the right to object, and the responsibility to pay child support.

Obviously different rules would apply in the case of rape victims. But in a normal consensual act between a man and a woman, the responsibility of sex does NOT lie SOLELY with the man if the woman consented to the act that created the child.

If a man commits to the idea, and pulls out of the equation after an abortion is no longer possible, than I fully agree that child support should be paid. But if the man pulls out immediately, and the woman insists on conceiving the child, then the choice to give birth lies with the woman, and hence the duty to financially support the child like-wise should be transferred.

Firm Master said:

The so called bond you talk about is also terribly unfair to refer to. You assume all women who have children get this undying love for their spawn while in reality it has a huge range, going down to viewing their child as a parasite of their body.

Click to expand...

This comment, while a bit dated couldn't be more true.

And to add my opinion, a father can be just as loving (or unloving) of their 'spawn' as much as a mother can. Excluding a father from the choice of abortion is ridiculous. Dameon #22 mentioned the "entire year of what could very well be mental, physical and emotional stress, and possibly trauma" involved, but child-support can be pretty draining, and while less 'traumatizing' it extends for much longer than a 'year.'

As with a lot of views regarding female rights/powers, I get the feeling that extensive attempts to 'protect' women is doing exactly the opposite and implanting the view that women actually need 'special treatment' that override equality. "Femi-nazi's" as someone said xD

------
I'm not saying that child-support is a bad system, but repeating myself.
"Saying that the choice to give birth is the exclusive power of a woman, while also expecting the man to take responsibility regardless of circumstances (objecting and being ignored) financially, is a sort of double standard that imbalances equality towards the alternative extreme."

My opinion on the matter is that a man should never have any kind of official say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion. However, if he does want an abortion and the woman does not, I think he should offer to pay for the abortion and if the offer is declined he should be absolved of responsibility for the child.

I think it probably depends on the situation, I find it sad if the woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep the child and subsequently bring it up himself, than why does the child need to die? Yes, the woman will be the one carrying it for 9 months with all the risks but then she knew the risks of unprotected sex as well and went through with it anyway.

I think the only way to make it fair really is if a man doesn't want the child although he can't insist the woman have an abortion he should be able to sign away his rights to the child and not be expected to pay child support. It's probably the closest a man can get to having an "abortion". I think this is possible in some areas anyway.