The denied reproductive rights of males.

[MrVicchio]

A woman has the right to abort a child she does not want, but a man is stuck paying the bill for a child he does not want.

I.E. Consider the following real life scenarios.

Bill and Linda engage in consensual intercourse that results in a pregnancy. There are only a few real outcomes.

They both wish to have the child, and find a way to make this happen either through living together, marriage or another situation that works for both.

Linda wants the child Bill does not. Linda gives birth, Bill spends 18-24 years paying child support for a child he never wanted.

Bill Wants the child, Linda does not. Linda aborts. Bill loses a child

Linda does not want the child but gives the child up to Bill. Linda pays Child support (possible).

Linda cannot bring herself to abort, but neither want the child, it is given away for adoption.

In all of the above situations, after the intercourse, the ball is in HER court as to what happens for both of them, and the unborn.

Men should have the right to "abort" their rights and responsibilities as fathers. After all, fairs fair, and while it's not "their body" it is a major part of their reproductive rights.



I expect every pro-abortion person should support equality under the law (see the 14th Amendment for this.) and back giving fathers the right to abort as well.

[Graywolves]

The law sees it as "her body her decision" kind of thing.

But it's a very interesting thing to discuss. The man should be able to do something instead of being expected to just go with whatever the woman wants.

[Krowe]

Thats generally how it goes in a relationship where the chick is the boyfriend.

[Crator]

Chick is boyfriend = Chick brings home bacon?

[Krowe]

Originally Posted by Crator

Chick is boyfriend = Chick brings home bacon?

When the woman in the relationship loves bacon more than the man, thats a gene pool that does not need to be reproducing.

[Baneblade]

I can understand both sides of this coin. No legislative body would ever rule that a man can make a decision that directly impacts the health and welfare of a woman in regards to childbirth. And while it certainly leaves the man out on the proverbial street, it isn't something that can really change.

The bottom line: The only time a man has the rights to a child he helped create is if he was married to the mother and she doesn't divorce him, but he divorces her. And can prove that he is going to be a better father and mother 24/7/365 with a full time job than she will be 2 hours a day while working at Wal-Mart.

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I can understand both sides of this coin. No legislative body would ever rule that a man can make a decision that directly impacts the health and welfare of a woman in regards to childbirth. And while it certainly leaves the man out on the proverbial street, it isn't something that can really change.

The bottom line: The only time a man has the rights to a child he helped create is if he was married to the mother and she doesn't divorce him, but he divorces her. And can prove that he is going to be a better father and mother 24/7/365 with a full time job than she will be 2 hours a day while working at Wal-Mart.

Women are scary.

[Baneblade]

They are the true masters of the universe after all. Why else would men be so afraid of them as to cover them up with black tents.

[Vecha]

Eh....I'm not "for" or "against" abortion.

I'm a man.


It isn't my body....that's how I look at it.

Though...if they are married...then perhaps there should be some law...or something to protect the rights of the husband who wants the child?

I dunno...

And a bit off-topic,

...really wish politicians would focus on economy, jobs, war, etc and stop talking about Abortion, religion, and everything else...

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Vecha

...really wish politicians would focus on economy, jobs, war, etc and stop talking about Abortion, religion, and everything else...

Democrats and Republicans work for the same corporate interest groups when it comes to the economy, jobs, wars, etc. If they didn't distract you with abortion and religion you'd realize that and vote for Ron Paul.

[Hamma]

Yea social issues have no place in politics.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Democrats and Republicans work for the same corporate interest groups when it comes to the economy, jobs, wars, etc. If they didn't distract you with abortion and religion you'd realize that and vote for Ron Paul.

We all have "interests."

Even Ron Paul.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

I'd say local politics can have it, but federal sticking their fingers into the cake is just wrong.

So the Nineteenth Amendment was "just wrong", in your opinion? Hell, how about the entire US Constitution in general? Was it wrong for certain rights to be guaranteed to citizens? Is it wrong for a government to recognize injustices and make it a certainty that no citizen might be the victim of such injustice within the context of the law? The states have and continue to demonstrate that they do not serve the interests of all their governed peoples.

Originally Posted by Vecha

Eh....I'm not "for" or "against" abortion.

I'm a man.


It isn't my body....that's how I look at it.

At no time has it ever been a requirement to be directly impacted by an injustice in order to have retain the opinion that an injustice is just that. Would someone who is not a black person living in the 1850s not be within reason to say that the institution of slavery is immoral? Is it inappropriate to say that women having acid thrown in their face in Pakistan or wherever is a bad thing?

I think you'll agree that when it comes to topics which have significant, life-changing affects upon your fellow citizens, especially, it is not only within your capacity to have an opinion on the issue (which you would try to make as informed and coherent as possible), but to weigh in on this issue when appropriate in an effort to ensure that the best interests of justice and individual welfare are served.

[Senyu]

I don't know if this is a issue that will be solved anytime soon or ever. You can argue its the mans fault for screwing, the womens fault for being screwed, or blame both. (This is assuming they both consented to sex and was not raped) But in the case of girl not wanting the child, you have to define who has the right. The woman carrying the child, or the unborn child that will grow into a person. Define that and things can fall into order. Personally I recommend to give birth to the child, provided that having the pregnacy will not endanger the womens health such as shes 12 and having a baby could kill her or something. If the childs birth is not life threatening then the baby should be allowed to live.

But its not me. And I wont infringe the right of another person descision that effects them in such a huge way.

And here lies the dilemma, the right for life or the individual's desicsion. Both are right in their own ways. I don't know if this is something that can be solved in our time.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Senyu

And here lies the dilemma, the right for life or the individual's desicsion. Both are right in their own ways. I don't know if this is something that can be solved in our time.

Indeed. Understanding this is something people on both sides of the debate are bad at. Aborting a fetus is really and truly killing what will one day soon be a baby. And an abortion is really and truly a woman doing whatever the hell she wishes to her own body. They are mutually exclusive.

I'd like to put advocates from both sides into a room, and they can't come out until they come up with a compromise that pisses everyone off equally(so you know its fair), and then that goes into the constitution so we can just stop talking about once and for all.