| Blogs > firehand101 |
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
I think up to a certain point (until the fetus is safely abortable, i dunno 3 months or something?) the male father gets to choose whether he will care for the baby or not, so he gets a say in the matter as well. I suggest this as I see many males get a woman pregnant and have their next 18 years tied down because the decision that results isn't up to him. Wouldn't it be fair to give them a say also?    | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
the man's decision is to accept the possibility of pregnancy when he chooses to have sex | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
As woman can opt-out of having a child, man get the same chance. Obviously a man can't force a woman to have/not have a baby, so his "abortion" is to completely decline any interaction with the baby (he loses all parental rights, aswell as duties like child support) This egalitarian propostion makes a lot of sense, but many people will label you as a woman hater for it. "the man's decision is to accept the possibility of pregnancy when he chooses to have sex" makes no sense whatsoever | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9158 Posts
don't stick your dick into a girl if you aren't shooting blanks and if you aren't prepared to have to support a child. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On November 27 2014 13:09 lichter wrote: don't be a fool; wrap your tool Yep, that should do it. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On November 27 2014 12:22 GoTuNk! wrote: What you are saying is called man abortion or financial abortion As woman can opt-out of having a child, man get the same chance. Obviously a man can't force a woman to have/not have a baby, so his "abortion" is to completely decline any interaction with the baby (he loses all parental rights, aswell as duties like child support) This egalitarian propostion makes a lot of sense, but many people will label you as a woman hater for it. "the man's decision is to accept the possibility of pregnancy when he chooses to have sex" makes no sense whatsoever the man takes on the responsibility when he sticks his dick in the woman, genius it makes sense because if you don't want to have a fucking child then don't do the thing that creates the child, in what universe does this not add up to you | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
One implication of abortions is the woman's right to choose, and I'm 100% in favor of this. It's her body, it's her choice, and she should be able to do what she wants with it. However, if the man wants the baby, and she changes her mind (or simply doesn't want it), then the guy's just fucked and he has to let the woman terminate the pregnancy on the valid yet harsh notion that the woman's body is her own. Sure, her body is her own, but isn't the pregnancy at least in some way a little bit theirs? If the pregnancy doesn't belong to both adults who fucked (as evidenced by the fact that the man has no say in the termination/non-termination of the pregnancy), then why does the pregnancy, when it becomes a child, suddenly belongs to the man, financially and in other ways? The question is not simple, but it seems to just be kind of like that. On one hand you have the fact that a woman's body is obviously her own, but there is something profoundly fucked up that comes from that undeniable given. Her body is inseparable from the pregnancy. So a pregnancy, caused by two people, now belongs 100% to only one of them. So in the end it's essentially unfair. Biologically, it's unfair. It's her body, therefore the man is fucked when it comes to what happens of the pregnancy he participated to. She gets to gauge the financial and emotional burden of aborting vs. not aborting. Whatever she does, it's a LIFE CHANGING DECISION OF MASSIVE IMPORTANCE. She gets too choose between 2 things, generally: 1- Having a child who will grow up to adult life and live all kinds of adventures, sadnesses and joys, etc. Like all of us. OR 2- Terminating a pregnancy with all the downsides of this, both to her emotionally and to her body. And the upsides (financial, freedom, SLEEP!). I would argue that you can hardly deny the fact that the man in this case is stripped of his say in a decision and it makes sense. But it's sad as fuck, too. People in this thread are saying that when you have sex it's your responsibility, and there's a possibility she'll get pregnant... But the responsibility between the two adults is completely unreasonably disproportionate. As a woman, you get a choice. As a man, the decision is thrust upon you. It's not the same. And so what's the solution? To put it plainly, there isn't one. You certainly can't dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies, that would be the most immoral "solution" of all. So what of a financial abortion? I think it's not a simple question, morally. In a way it counterbalances, to an extent, the fact that the woman gets to choose whether she aborts or not. Many women get a chance (if I can say it like that) to abort when their pregnancy occurs at a bad time in their life (during their studies or whatever). Mistakes happen -> abort -> problem fixed. Men don't have a say. If your gf puts holes in your condoms, sorry, you're fucked. If it's an accident, you're fucked all the same. She's very inconvenienced but not necessarily fucked. Given the importance of women's say in whether they got to abort or not, it's hard for me to say that financial abortions would be morally wrong, due to the context. However, I find that the idea that you could blackmail a woman into aborting a child that she wants to keep by saying her you'll cut the financial ties frankly sickening. But there's something there in principle in that men are completely helpless after the fact. But anyway I think that the whole concept is unenforceable. Surely the man would only get to financially abort a child during the "abortable" period of her pregnancy. So what if he's not made aware of the pregnancy during those 6 months? How would we rule either way? It may be his fault they didn't talk, or her's. There are plenty of reasons why this would be a massive legal mess. However by far the biggest problem for me is that the woman gets to abort even if the man doesn't want her to. It's unavoidable, and there is no other way.... but now that is some proper suckage. And I think that the idea that your future child may be yanked from you and you as a man are 100% powerless against is a lot more fucked up than having to pay for a child that you facking made. The bottomline sadly is the following: You are fucked. You just are. Do what you can with what you're given and reduce your chances of being fucked by the unfortunate, unfair way of things (regarding this particular matter). Wrap your willy if you don't want kids (or get a vasectomy), and find a reliable smart woman who wants kids if you want them too. Long winded post, I rambled a little... Better than a lazy fucking one-liner from self-proclaimed moral authoritiahs. Good night | ||
|
Fission
Canada1184 Posts
On November 27 2014 13:09 lichter wrote: don't be a fool; wrap your tool +1 | ||
|
MysteryMeat1
United States3292 Posts
never send in your soldier without a helmet | ||
|
Onekobold
244 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
telling a woman whether or not to have a kid after getting her pregnant in the first place doesnt seem right. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Also cut the abstinence crap. It doesn't work and it's based on a thoughtless ideology. People don't like to hear it but the right for abortion is a tradeoff. There is a tradeoff between the mother's right to decide what happens inside her own body vs the fetus's right to live. The mother's rights aren't absolute. As far I know not even the most liberal countries don't allow extremely late abortions. The same kind of logic should apply to disowning your future children: there's a tradeoff between the kid's right to be cared for by their biological parents and the parent's right not to be financially crippled by a situation that he had less control over than the other side. As it is a tradeoff I have no sympathy for people who want to avoid manageable amounts. Stop whining and deal with it. It's an unfortunate situation and in the end not everyone's going to be happy. So don't complain that you didn't get exactly what you wanted. However I do think people shouldn't be put in a situation where they are forced to pay amounts that's financially crippling. It's a tradeoff and the kid's right to have a comfortable childhood doesn't trump the father's to have any life at all. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24734 Posts
| ||
|
Khenra
Netherlands885 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:46 Aveng3r wrote: Its not like a man doesnt have a say in whether his sexual partner has a kid or not. wear a condom. Condoms don't work 100% of the time. I don't think it's fair that the man can get tied down financially for such a long time but at the same time the woman's rights to her body and the kid's rights to a decent upbringing supersede the man's. It sucks but that's just the risk you take doing awesome sexy times. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
The PondCast
LAN Event
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
LAN Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
