Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 01:45 AM
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
(10-10-2016 01:20 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 12:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The problem is that the man was never a neutral party in the matter. If they together, as a couple, chose to have unprotected sex, then he already made his choice. They have to go into that knowing that they may be on the hook for 18 years of responsibility, and that the choice to carry the baby to term is not theirs to make.

It's a gamble, and when you gamble my friend, sometimes you lose.

So in other words the woman has no agency in the matter?
That i disagree with there are plenty of ways a woman can avoid getting pregnant if she doesn´t want to.
There´s both the pill, the morning after pill and a rubber specially designed to block the uterus and probably even more.

And even should all of that fail, she still has the options of terminating the pregnancy if she so chooses.
All of it designed to give the woman a choice on whether she wants to have the child or not.

The man has no such options yes he has the condom, but if that fails or he chooses to trust her when she says she is using protection.
And she ends up pregnant and chooses to keep the baby he has no option what so ever.
He will have to pay up until the child is 18.

Equal rights in abortion will give the man the option of simply saying no i don´t want to be a father and remove any legal obligations to that child including child support.
As mentioned in my post that has certain consequences.

One of the consequences of allowing men to opt out of child support (or threaten to do so) is that it potentially places a man financial authonomy (the right to dispose of his income how he sees fit) over that of a woman's body authonomy (how she chooses to dispose of herself). A woman's financial situation is perhapse the biggest consideration when considering abortion. Threatening to cut child support is a good way to push a woman to have an abortion even if she doesn't want to. In our justice system, body authonomy trumps financial authonomy. That's why a fine is considered a lighter sentence than jail time.

In the case where a men and a women wouldn't agree on keeping or not a child, it stands to reason that person bearing the most risks and responsability has the final word. In this case, it will always be the woman since they face all the risks of pregnancy and of the abortion procedure (ironically they also suffer financially much more than a man for raising a child to adulthood). In all cases, a man can still refuse to father a child and never see, hear or do anything with his child for the rest of his life. He might have to pay a certain amount of money based on his income and capacity to pay, but that doesn't equate to being a father at all, not even by a long shot.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
10-10-2016, 02:22 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 02:35 AM by Erikjust.)
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're missing the point. If he doesn't want a kid, then he has the choice to use protection. Now protection isn't perfect, but that's still his risk. It is also the woman's risk, because while her right to an abortion is guaranteed, it not a right that everyone has easy access to (thanks GOP fuckheads).

So does she as mentioned before protection for women does exist, so why does it only fall on men´s shoulders to protect themselves?

As for the GOP forbidding it, that would fall into neither having the right for an abortion and then i am fine with that pothole, because if the woman doesn´t insist on protection from the man, she doesn´t have the option of legally getting rid of the child.
So again here there´s equal right, both can use protection and that´s the first and only line of defense against pregnancy.

When a woman has the option (something i am a clear advocate for) of freely going to a clinic to get an abortion within the time limit, if she so chooses.
Then she has a second line of defense that men doesn´t have.
If men has the option of saying of legally severing any responsibilities for that child he has that second line of defense too.

Men and women are not the same on a biological base, so of course alternatives will have to be put in place to level the playing field so to speak.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But if that man has unprotected sex, and the woman consents to it, they're both risking pregnancy; and the man does it knowing that the choice to abort or not is not his decision to make. He has his decision making point, he doesn't get a second chance at it. The mother does, but it's also her body shouldering the burden. To consent to having unprotected sex is to consent to all of the reasonable repercussions, including pregnancy and the responsibility that confers to both parties.

I disagree here, because as i read it it places the burden solely on the man´s shoulders and disregards all the options the woman has of protecting herself.
If she wants to get pregnant by all means let her, however the man should not be dragged along whether he wants to or not.
By giving the man the option of saying no i don´t want that and cut any legal responsibilities for the child.
Both parties in their own way carry and equal amount of choice.
If the woman wants to be a single mother she can be, that´s her choice.
If the man doesn´t want to be a father then he has that option and the woman will have to decide whether or not she has the financial means to take care of that child.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Past the act of sex, it's the woman's choice because it is her burden.

As said before i am completely in agreement that women, should have the right to a free abortion, done by professional doctors in a safe sterile environment for free.
The alternative is illegal abortions, which in worse chase scenarios will be done on a filthy kitchen table with a knitting needle.
And there are probably plenty on graves filled with women who died of an infection because of that.

But beyond choosing whether or not to have the child, that where her choice ends.
If the man chooses (within the abortion limit of course) not to have any legal response for the child, he shouldn´t be forced to pay child´s support for that.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Indeed. So don't have recreational sex with people whom you don't trust or have an agreement with to not have kids, if you're both looking to have sex for fun. Use protection, and if that fails, get an abortion. And if you cannot trust the other person enough to do these things, DON'T FUCK THEM.

Again here´s the problem the man has zero say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion or not, if she chooses not to and carries the child to term, the man has no other option then to start pay child support.

Equal rights and equal opportunity goes both ways not just one.
If the woman has the right to an abortion, the man should have the right to sever his legal responsibilities for the child.
Yes a man can´t get pregnant and as such can never get an abortion himself nor should he be able to force it on the woman if she doesn´t want one.
But neither should the woman be able to force a man who doesn´t want to be a father to pay for a child he in the end didn´t want.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or, don't have sex with people whom you don't trust. The internet has petabytes of porn available, and a Fleshlight is a much cheaper investment than a kid.

And yet sex with an actual woman feels better and again you make it sound like the man is the only one responsible and that there are no protections available for women or that they simply aren´t intelligent enough to use it.
Neither of which is true.

Again equal rights goes both ways and if a man doesn´t want to be a father the woman shouldn´t be able to force him to (which in a way she does through the act of having the right to child support)
And neither should the man be able to force the woman to carry his child if she doesn´t want to.

(10-10-2016 01:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:  One of the consequences of allowing men to opt out of child support (or threaten to do so) is that it potentially places a man financial authonomy (the right to dispose of his income how he sees fit) over that of a woman's body authonomy (how she chooses to dispose of herself). A woman's financial situation is perhapse the biggest consideration when considering abortion. Threatening to cut child support is a good way to push a woman to have an abortion even if she doesn't want to. In our justice system, body authonomy trumps financial authonomy. That's why a fine is considered a lighter sentence than jail time.

In the case where a men and a women wouldn't agree on keeping or not a child, it stands to reason that person bearing the most risks and responsability has the final word. In this case, it will always be the woman since they face all the risks of pregnancy and of the abortion procedure (ironically they also suffer financially much more than a man for raising a child to adulthood). In all cases, a man can still refuse to father a child and never see, hear or do anything with his child for the rest of his life. He might have to pay a certain amount of money based on his income and capacity to pay, but that doesn't equate to being a father at all, not even by a long shot.

As already said there are two ways the man can (if what i am suggesting) can opt out of paying child support.
1: By filling out the formula cutting off any legal obligation child support, while the woman still has the right to an abortion.
If the woman wants to have a child that´s her choice, if she does so and want to relie on the man to support her, she has to take a gamble just like the man does.
2: By the woman not allowing the man to see his child without her presence.
Now the second isn´t something the man HAS to do if the man chooses just to pay the child support, but otherwise not have anything to do with the child that´s his choice.
But if the man WANTS to see and be with his child, that is something the woman has to allow, if she wants to continue to get child support from the man.
The only option of still getting child support but being able to refuse the man his right to see the child, is if she can prove he abuses the child or act irresponsible around it so that it puts the child´s life in danger.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 05:42 AM
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
You know the difference between a lightbulb and a pregnant woman???

You can un-screw a lightbulb.....


Sorry pal.

No free passes.....

....

If you knock her up - you're stuck paying for the next 18 years.

Them's the rules.

...

And safe bet - it's not gonna change -- so wear a rubber --- or make out that check to "Friend of the Court".....

...

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
10-10-2016, 06:24 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 06:36 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're missing the point. If he doesn't want a kid, then he has the choice to use protection. Now protection isn't perfect, but that's still his risk. It is also the woman's risk, because while her right to an abortion is guaranteed, it not a right that everyone has easy access to (thanks GOP fuckheads).
So does she as mentioned before protection for women does exist, so why does it only fall on men´s shoulders to protect themselves?

For fucking real? The choice to use protection, or not, is available to both. If you don't want a kid, and the person you're planing on having sex with objects to you using protection, then don't have sex with them. NOT HAVING SEX IS ALWAYS AN OPTION. Are you trying to be purposely obtuse?


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  As for the GOP forbidding it, that would fall into neither having the right for an abortion and then i am fine with that pothole, because if the woman doesn´t insist on protection from the man, she doesn´t have the option of legally getting rid of the child.

So you're okay with shitty politicians pandering to their ignorant base by limiting the freedom of women? Well, fuck you too then.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  So again here there´s equal right, both can use protection and that´s the first and only line of defense against pregnancy.

Sex requires consent, or else it becomes sexual assault (colloquially called rape). At any time one or both can opt to not have sex, or to stop sex mid coitus. If one insists on using protection and the other refuses, effectively not granting consent, then there shouldn't be any sex. If you don't want a kid, use protection, and if the other person doesn't consent to using protection, DON'T FUCK THEM.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  When a woman has the option (something i am a clear advocate for) of freely going to a clinic to get an abortion within the time limit, if she so chooses.
Then she has a second line of defense that men doesn´t have.

Congrats, you've noticed that women are physiologically distinct from men.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  If men has the option of saying of legally severing any responsibilities for that child he has that second line of defense too.

Except, the mother can't; unless the child is adopted, in which case both parents forfeit their rights. There's already a procedure in place.

Women have that later option based on the circumstance of their physiology.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  Men and women are not the same on a biological base, so of course alternatives will have to be put in place to level the playing field so to speak.

Facepalm

This is not something that needs to be leveled...


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But if that man has unprotected sex, and the woman consents to it, they're both risking pregnancy; and the man does it knowing that the choice to abort or not is not his decision to make. He has his decision making point, he doesn't get a second chance at it. The mother does, but it's also her body shouldering the burden. To consent to having unprotected sex is to consent to all of the reasonable repercussions, including pregnancy and the responsibility that confers to both parties.
I disagree here, because as i read it it places the burden solely on the man´s shoulders and disregards all the options the woman has of protecting herself.

In what fucking universe? The woman can insist on using protection as well. A woman can demand that her partner(s) use a condom, and refuse to consent to sex otherwise. Not only that, but by the nature of her physiology, she has access to greater range and variety of options (IUD, morning after pill, tubal ligation, etc.). But if she consents to having unprotected sex, that's on her; and if that unprotected sex was not consensual, we call that rape, and then we're in an entirely different ballpark.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  If she wants to get pregnant by all means let her, however the man should not be dragged along whether he wants to or not.

If he consents to sex, then he consents to the possibility of becoming a father. End of discussion.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  By giving the man the option of saying no i don´t want that and cut any legal responsibilities for the child.
Both parties in their own way carry and equal amount of choice.

They do, and that choice is made before having sex.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  If the woman wants to be a single mother she can be, that´s her choice.
If the man doesn´t want to be a father then he has that option and the woman will have to decide whether or not she has the financial means to take care of that child.

He doesn't get a second chance, he made his choice when he consented to sex. Risk of pregnancy is always that, a risk; and no preventative measures are full-proof outside of hard biological cases (vasectomy, removal of cervix, menopause, etc.). Consenting to sex is to consent to the possibility, however large or small, that you might become a parent with all of the responsibilities and obligations that entails.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  But beyond choosing whether or not to have the child, that where her choice ends.
If the man chooses (within the abortion limit of course) not to have any legal response for the child, he shouldn´t be forced to pay child´s support for that.

Yes, he should. He consented to that possibility when he consented to having sex.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Indeed. So don't have recreational sex with people whom you don't trust or have an agreement with to not have kids, if you're both looking to have sex for fun. Use protection, and if that fails, get an abortion. And if you cannot trust the other person enough to do these things, DON'T FUCK THEM.
Again here´s the problem the man has zero say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion or not, if she chooses not to and carries the child to term, the man has no other option then to start pay child support.

NO, HE HAD THE OPTION TO NO FUCK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Consenting to sex is to consent to the possibility, however large or small, that you might become a parent with all of the responsibilities and obligations that entails.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  Equal rights and equal opportunity goes both ways not just one.

Indeed, either party can remove their consent to have sex. If the other party ignores that, we call it rape.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  If the woman has the right to an abortion, the man should have the right to sever his legal responsibilities for the child.

No, because her right is born from her physiology. You cannot get to there from here, based on the physiology of the man. There is no equivocation here to be had.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  Yes a man can´t get pregnant and as such can never get an abortion himself nor should he be able to force it on the woman if she doesn´t want one.
But neither should the woman be able to force a man who doesn´t want to be a father to pay for a child he in the end didn´t want.

Consenting to sex is to consent to the possibility, however large or small, that you might become a parent with all of the responsibilities and obligations that entails.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or, don't have sex with people whom you don't trust. The internet has petabytes of porn available, and a Fleshlight is a much cheaper investment than a kid.
And yet sex with an actual woman feels better and again you make it sound like the man is the only one responsible and that there are no protections available for women or that they simply aren´t intelligent enough to use it.
Neither of which is true.

In what fucking universe can the woman not also refuse to fuck if she doesn't want a child? Do you know what happens when someone fucks you without your consent? We call that rape.


(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  Again equal rights goes both ways and if a man doesn´t want to be a father the woman shouldn´t be able to force him to (which in a way she does through the act of having the right to child support)
And neither should the man be able to force the woman to carry his child if she doesn´t want to.

It's a fucking mantra at this point, so repeat after me again.

Consenting to sex is to consent to the possibility, however large or small, that you might become a parent with all of the responsibilities and obligations that entails.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2016, 06:29 AM
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
Sexual reproduction is not symmetrical. That is reality.

While your objection appears on the surface to be reasonable,
consider that a man risks his money while a woman risks her life.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2016, 06:30 AM
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
(10-10-2016 12:27 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  So again in my mind either both have the right to an abortion or neither of them have the right.

When you can implant the fetus in the man to carry to term, you will be right. Until such a time - just no.

Beyond that, in some of your scenarios - the child is the big loser. It's not a teddy bear, it's a human being once it's born.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Dom's post
10-10-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
Agreed--Dom and EK. Having sex ='s the potential of having babies. If you are fearful of becoming a father because protection is not 100 percent effective, then don't do it. Or get a vasectomy. Then you are in complete control of the outcome. I actually have a friend who did this. He knew he never wanted kids, so he removed the possibility. And just because a woman says she is on the pill--you can still request that you use a condom--it helps to protect against STDs, while the pill does not.

I personally am not a fan of one night stands or sex with random people. I prefer monogamous, longterm rships because then you know the person well, trust them, love them, and know you'll both do your best to have each other's best interests in mind should a pregnancy occur.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
10-10-2016, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 11:06 AM by SYZ.)
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
(10-10-2016 01:20 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 12:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If they together, as a couple, chose to have unprotected sex, then he already made his choice. They have to go into that knowing that they may be on the hook for 18 years of responsibility, and that the choice to carry the baby to term is not theirs to make.

I'm thinking that you've completely missed the point that EK made about the man making his choice prior to consensual intercourse.

Quote:The man has no such options yes he has the condom [...]

So the man's condom can break/leak, but the woman's IUD/cap/pill never fails?

—I really think you're creating a solution looking for a problem with your hypothetical scenario. In fact, I'm thinking the whole notion is an exercise in absurdity. Sorry.


Quote:As already said there are two ways the man can (if what i am suggesting) can opt out of paying child support.
1: By filling out the formula cutting off any legal obligation child support, while the woman still has the right to an abortion.
If the woman wants to have a child that´s her choice, if she does so and want to relie on the man to support her, she has to take a gamble just like the man does.
2: By the woman not allowing the man to see his child without her presence.
Now the second isn´t something the man HAS to do if the man chooses just to pay the child support, but otherwise not have anything to do with the child that´s his choice.
But if the man WANTS to see and be with his child, that is something the woman has to allow, if she wants to continue to get child support from the man.
The only option of still getting child support but being able to refuse the man his right to see the child, is if she can prove he abuses the child or act irresponsible around it so that it puts the child´s life in danger.

This is a completely nonsensical and a totally unworkable legal nightmare. You've suggested so many ifs, buts and maybes that I'm starting to think you've started this thread in order to be willfully argumentative. You've been told in numerous responses that your notion can't and won't work—you're only flogging a dead horse hereon.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
10-10-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: Equal rights in abortion for both men and women?
(10-10-2016 02:22 AM)Erikjust Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're missing the point. If he doesn't want a kid, then he has the choice to use protection. Now protection isn't perfect, but that's still his risk. It is also the woman's risk, because while her right to an abortion is guaranteed, it not a right that everyone has easy access to (thanks GOP fuckheads).

So does she as mentioned before protection for women does exist, so why does it only fall on men´s shoulders to protect themselves?

As for the GOP forbidding it, that would fall into neither having the right for an abortion and then i am fine with that pothole, because if the woman doesn´t insist on protection from the man, she doesn´t have the option of legally getting rid of the child.
So again here there´s equal right, both can use protection and that´s the first and only line of defense against pregnancy.

When a woman has the option (something i am a clear advocate for) of freely going to a clinic to get an abortion within the time limit, if she so chooses.
Then she has a second line of defense that men doesn´t have.
If men has the option of saying of legally severing any responsibilities for that child he has that second line of defense too.

Men and women are not the same on a biological base, so of course alternatives will have to be put in place to level the playing field so to speak.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But if that man has unprotected sex, and the woman consents to it, they're both risking pregnancy; and the man does it knowing that the choice to abort or not is not his decision to make. He has his decision making point, he doesn't get a second chance at it. The mother does, but it's also her body shouldering the burden. To consent to having unprotected sex is to consent to all of the reasonable repercussions, including pregnancy and the responsibility that confers to both parties.

I disagree here, because as i read it it places the burden solely on the man´s shoulders and disregards all the options the woman has of protecting herself.
If she wants to get pregnant by all means let her, however the man should not be dragged along whether he wants to or not.
By giving the man the option of saying no i don´t want that and cut any legal responsibilities for the child.
Both parties in their own way carry and equal amount of choice.
If the woman wants to be a single mother she can be, that´s her choice.
If the man doesn´t want to be a father then he has that option and the woman will have to decide whether or not she has the financial means to take care of that child.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Past the act of sex, it's the woman's choice because it is her burden.

As said before i am completely in agreement that women, should have the right to a free abortion, done by professional doctors in a safe sterile environment for free.
The alternative is illegal abortions, which in worse chase scenarios will be done on a filthy kitchen table with a knitting needle.
And there are probably plenty on graves filled with women who died of an infection because of that.

But beyond choosing whether or not to have the child, that where her choice ends.
If the man chooses (within the abortion limit of course) not to have any legal response for the child, he shouldn´t be forced to pay child´s support for that.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Indeed. So don't have recreational sex with people whom you don't trust or have an agreement with to not have kids, if you're both looking to have sex for fun. Use protection, and if that fails, get an abortion. And if you cannot trust the other person enough to do these things, DON'T FUCK THEM.

Again here´s the problem the man has zero say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion or not, if she chooses not to and carries the child to term, the man has no other option then to start pay child support.

Equal rights and equal opportunity goes both ways not just one.
If the woman has the right to an abortion, the man should have the right to sever his legal responsibilities for the child.
Yes a man can´t get pregnant and as such can never get an abortion himself nor should he be able to force it on the woman if she doesn´t want one.
But neither should the woman be able to force a man who doesn´t want to be a father to pay for a child he in the end didn´t want.

(10-10-2016 01:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or, don't have sex with people whom you don't trust. The internet has petabytes of porn available, and a Fleshlight is a much cheaper investment than a kid.

And yet sex with an actual woman feels better and again you make it sound like the man is the only one responsible and that there are no protections available for women or that they simply aren´t intelligent enough to use it.
Neither of which is true.

Again equal rights goes both ways and if a man doesn´t want to be a father the woman shouldn´t be able to force him to (which in a way she does through the act of having the right to child support)
And neither should the man be able to force the woman to carry his child if she doesn´t want to.

(10-10-2016 01:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:  One of the consequences of allowing men to opt out of child support (or threaten to do so) is that it potentially places a man financial authonomy (the right to dispose of his income how he sees fit) over that of a woman's body authonomy (how she chooses to dispose of herself). A woman's financial situation is perhapse the biggest consideration when considering abortion. Threatening to cut child support is a good way to push a woman to have an abortion even if she doesn't want to. In our justice system, body authonomy trumps financial authonomy. That's why a fine is considered a lighter sentence than jail time.

In the case where a men and a women wouldn't agree on keeping or not a child, it stands to reason that person bearing the most risks and responsability has the final word. In this case, it will always be the woman since they face all the risks of pregnancy and of the abortion procedure (ironically they also suffer financially much more than a man for raising a child to adulthood). In all cases, a man can still refuse to father a child and never see, hear or do anything with his child for the rest of his life. He might have to pay a certain amount of money based on his income and capacity to pay, but that doesn't equate to being a father at all, not even by a long shot.

As already said there are two ways the man can (if what i am suggesting) can opt out of paying child support.
1: By filling out the formula cutting off any legal obligation child support, while the woman still has the right to an abortion.
If the woman wants to have a child that´s her choice, if she does so and want to relie on the man to support her, she has to take a gamble just like the man does.
2: By the woman not allowing the man to see his child without her presence.
Now the second isn´t something the man HAS to do if the man chooses just to pay the child support, but otherwise not have anything to do with the child that´s his choice.
But if the man WANTS to see and be with his child, that is something the woman has to allow, if she wants to continue to get child support from the man.
The only option of still getting child support but being able to refuse the man his right to see the child, is if she can prove he abuses the child or act irresponsible around it so that it puts the child´s life in danger.
She has a "second line of defense" because the female has a whole secondhand process ongoing.

Does a man have to develop, feed, and sustain a developing fetus that grows over months within their body? That is why the scenario isn't there for men bulevause the situation is vastly different.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: