male abortion rights

now basicly, male abortion rights DOES NOT GIVE MALES THE RIGHT TO FORCE WOMEN TO ABORT

thats not what it is

basicly, its the right for a male, in the time frame the woman has to abort, to abort fatherhood, meaning

she cannot force you to be a father

you lose all rights to the baby AND responsiblitlies


does anybody agree?

 

I totally fuckin' agree, because it shouldn't be a women's-only choice... However, it would start a lot of shit happening to young moms who don't believe in abortion and get ditched because of the baby...

I guess I don't TOTALLY agree, but I can see both sides of the argument and it seems that the negatives outweigh the positives if it became a law or rule whatever.

If a man doesn't want a baby, he should just not fire his gun in the bunker.

 

while i agree, but sex isnt a crime, and we souldnt be punished for it
and he souldnt be punished because of her choices, thats bullshit.

alright fine, i killed somebody, you can go to jail for no reason:$

 

Women asked for equal rights, I'd say this is the definition of equal rights.

However, I think there should be like a 2 male abortion limit. That could help keep certain men from going out and impregnating everything they see with no consequences. If you don't learn by the second one, your on your own . . .

 

I agree. Alternatively, ban women from getting an abortion unless the father consents. The idea that it is "a woman's body, so its her choice" is a myth (if not an outright lie). The part that gets aborted is not a part of the woman's body, it merely resides within it. The part thats aborted belongs half to the mother, and half to the father.

 

close, bt its her body.
most women abort cause they dont want to have to go thru nine months of uter hell
and she wild rather abort then risk severe injury and death

 

when you carry a child for 9 months then you get the right to choose to abort. you cannot force a woman to not abort, you cannot force her to abort. as for giving up parentage rights, eh, im not sure where i stand on that one... but actual abortion is up to the person carrying the child which (until medical sciences go a few more steps) is the woman

 

I agree that if a pregnant woman chooses not to abort a fetus against the biological father's objections then it is her baby and not his ... why should an unwilling father financially support a child that is, for all intents, not his? I hear people say, "You play, you pay..." and that is true; if a man impregnates a woman accidentally, and if he's going to foot the bill for the abortion, he is trying to pay. Paying should not mean he must ruin his life.

However, I don't agree that a man should be able to prevent a woman from aborting a fetus. True, it is not her body but a thing residing in her body. However, its effects on her body are profound. Diabetes, high blood pressure, back pain, possible nerve damage, poor circulation, mood swings, possible psychosis, the risk of death from exsanguination and infection are some of the more extreme effects. No man risks his life during a pregnancy unless he says something to really piss off a laboring woman.

If a man wants a woman to bear his child against her will, he should be prepared to compensate her for the service.

Compelling women to bear children brings women to the level of farm animals. Aside from turning women into incubators, it smacks strongly of eugenics.

There are circumstances in which the individual's freedom should take a back seat to public safety ... I don't think "Typhoid Marys" should be allowed to galavant all over the globe, nor do I think the welfare of an individual child should be deemed more important than preventing diseases for which they could be immunized. However, forcing a woman to bear a child has little to do with public good and much to do with individual ego.

 

Pregnancy is not a "punishment" of sex, it's a naturally occuring consequence. If you haven't figured that out, you shouldn't be having sex. I agree this is a very complicated issue, but I think it's sad that with all this talk of the rights of the mother vs the rights of the father, no one seems to remember the rights of the child.

 

Wtf. It isnt a consequence, before the earth was overcrowded that was kind of the goal of sex, the pleasure is more of an added bonus if you ask me. Times change of course so now its for pleasure mostly. (Im not some wacko-uber-christian that is strictly procreation so dont bother attacking me on this)

The arguement of dont play the game if you wont pay for the kid, that is complete bullshit as well, the women can take birth control just as easy as a man using a condom, if the women doesnt make the man use a condom and she does not take a contreceptive why the hell should the man have to suffer for her actions.

Ok yea, some guys DO want kids but if they want the kid then they should make sure the women wants a kid, if she doesnt they shouldnt be trying to make a baby with her. You would think that conversation would come up before they start having unprotected sex.

Basically to sum it up for you A.D.D folks, if either of the participants do not want the kid then they should not have to suffer for it. If you dont want a kid wrap your shit or swallow some pills, easy as that.

Discuss your feelings about children with your partner before you knock her up and your/ her emotions get in the way. As for the childs right to be born I think there is a time limit (certain # of months) before you cannot get an abortion, imo why bring in a child that will have a parent(s) that do not want him thats equally as cruel.

 

and what about when the pill fails or the condom breaks?

 

When you get right down to it sex is there for the purpose of reproduction, not pleasure, yet birth control has skewed this perception. (one pointer here is that birth control is not free, so don't assume all people have access to it)

Plesure only ensure that one wants to do it, but in the end the babies are the REASON behind the instinct. So the pleasure mules can go out the door. It is a responsibility on both parents. Birth control has changed our viewpoint on sex but it does not disenable the ability for the ones censenting to it to have responsibility.

 

Shit does happen sadly.
But if one were on a B.C pill or a condom was in play I would think that a baby was not in the picture, meaning the couple was not wanting a baby so abortion doesnt seem like a bad idea.

ps- Doesnt the pill have like a 1-3% failure rate.

 

I have no problems with abortion until it becomes birth control. It is one thing to be surprised, or raped, but another to plan it this way....

 

No. wear a condom. If your going to have lots of frivolous sex, wear a condom and know that theres an off chance she'll get pregnant. Pregnancy happens.

And the father should consent to the abortion? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Anyone saying such is an unreasonable moron. If you'd like me to explain why that's a moronic position I will, but you'll probably be too god damned stupid to uinderstand.

 

She can't force you not to wear a condom or have sex with you either. maybe if men learned how to control their urges and sometimes do the tough thing (ie-not fucking people you are not in love with) this wouldn't be an issue.

 

behind every woman that aborts there is a man that aborts.... men, generally, don't want to intervene in the decision and they are used to maintaining a little distant, they feel out of control, remote, and brave with himself and with their couple.

like women, men are done the same questions when its embarrassment is not desired; nevertheless, they feel that they have less right than they to pressure because the child doesn't depend on his own body. the consequences of the abortion in the man are similar to those of the woman... when there is excessive pressures by deciding, the feelings of fault invade them and they, i mean men, are used to thinking constantly in the boy that to have been able to be born.

notice that in no occidental country in which the abortion is legal, right is given to men on the decision because it's considered that the woman legally can't be obliged a decision that involves her body.

men are also responsible for the birth of the baby, but women have the last words to say, you know...

 

People (both males and females) that are not (yet) prepared or willing to take care of their possible offspring should not be allowed to have unprotected vaginal sex - PERIOD.

 

theorically, people assume this responsibility. they should be allowed of havin' unprotected sex, though they must be aware of its consequences.

 

thats a very mature adult thing to say and yes you are right. But do you remember being 16 and hearing that shit? goes in one ear and out the other. When I was 16 and I heard people telling me not to have sex, I wasn't old enough, to much responsibility, yada yada, I would laugh. Pleasure before responsibility is the motto for the young person.

Telling people not to have sex? yeah right!! You might as well tell them not to breath!!