Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Originally posted by inanna1234
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

If men didn't pay child support for their children, you would have to pay through it in taxes! If some guy ran around having 10 kids with a handful of woman and he chooses not to pay support... guess who does? The Government (you)... why do you think their so hard on dads who don't pay it? If you don't want to pay child support then don't have a child until you're in a commited relationship, keep it in your pants, wear protection or get a snip! It's really that simple!


And to add if you're sleeping with someone who you think would "extort" you for money and purposely get pregnant, you're obviously hanging around the wrong people... but then again, like attracts like!

edit on 1-6-2011 by inanna1234 because: Added Info

Actually, there are those who PAY taxes for those who dont pay child support everyday!! There are those who pay taxes for the women who decide to have 6 kids,6 different fathers,and do it just FOR the support,and welfare that goes hand in hand! Professional child support vixens.You dont need to be around the wrong people to get conned. Also,protection can fail.Abstinence is the only way,but you failed to point that out in your biased rant........ BTW,womens equality should not be beneficial for ONLY the women,when it takes 2 to tango. The Suffrage Movement took a detour,reading and responding to this post.............

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by inanna1234
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

If men didn't pay child support for their children, you would have to pay through it in taxes! If some guy ran around having 10 kids with a handful of woman and he chooses not to pay support... guess who does? The Government (you)... why do you think their so hard on dads who don't pay it? If you don't want to pay child support then don't have a child until you're in a commited relationship, keep it in your pants, wear protection or get a snip! It's really that simple!


And to add if you're sleeping with someone who you think would "extort" you for money and purposely get pregnant, you're obviously hanging around the wrong people... but then again, like attracts like!

edit on 1-6-2011 by inanna1234 because: Added Info

Actually, there are those who PAY taxes for those who dont pay child support everyday!! There are those who pay taxes for the women who decide to have 6 kids,6 different fathers,and do it just FOR the support,and welfare that goes hand in hand! Professional child support vixens.You dont need to be around the wrong people to get conned. Also,protection can fail.Abstinence is the only way,but you failed to point that out in your biased rant........

BTW,womens equality should not be beneficial for ONLY the women,when it takes 2 to tango. The Suffrage Movement took a detour,reading and responding to this post.............

Duh there is women already recieving supports from the government; but if men stopped paying child support there would be a whole lote more of them! I personally don't want my tax dollars going to selfish men who can't keep it in their pants.

reply to post by inanna1234


I dont know about the women you know, but the vast majority of single mothers get support.

And if it is a MUTUAL choice, then the man should be able to insist on an abortion, or be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

You keep harping on the tax issue as if that were somehow a male problem. Can't afford a kid, dont get knocked up. Simple as that.

Originally posted by inanna1234


Duh there is women already recieving supports from the government; but if men stopped paying child support there would be a whole lote more of them! I personally don't want my tax dollars going to selfish men who can't keep it in their pants.

edit on 1-6-2011 by inanna1234 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by inanna1234 because: (no reason given)

Whaaaat? Who said anything about giving tax dollars to men?

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by inanna1234

 

I dont know about the women you know, but the vast majority of single mothers get support.

And if it is a MUTUAL choice, then the man should be able to insist on an abortion, or be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

You keep harping on the tax issue as if that were somehow a male problem. Can't afford a kid, dont get knocked up. Simple as that.

edit on 1-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)

It's both of them! Women and men!
But a lot of people are really hating on women here. I could never imagine being forced to have an abortion... that is a horible thing...

Originally posted by inanna1234

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by inanna1234

 

I dont know about the women you know, but the vast majority of single mothers get support.

And if it is a MUTUAL choice, then the man should be able to insist on an abortion, or be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

You keep harping on the tax issue as if that were somehow a male problem. Can't afford a kid, dont get knocked up. Simple as that.

edit on 1-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)

It's both of them! Women and men!
But a lot of people are really hating on women here. I could never imagine being forced to have an abortion... that is a horible thing...

Your idea is selfish and one sided. Why does the man have to keep it zipped? Why cant the women keep it sowed? And hating on women? No,im using logic,not emotion when it comes down to telling you you are wrong. If equality is something women strive for,why cant they be equal in ALL decisions? Abortion,child support,child placement,so on and so forth. You hear the words "sperm donor",but never hear "the box the kid came out off".Personally, If you have a child,you should support it EQUALLY,and have laws that place burden EQUALLY!

reply to post by inanna1234


Try imagining being thrown in jail because you had no money to hand over to a whore for a child you never wanted in the first place.

Or visey versey. Imagine being that poster from earlier in the thread here, who's child was murdered in the womb by his girlfriend.

Clearly there is some kind of misunderstanding in personal communication here. The man did not discuss the pregnancy with the woman, and discuss together the ramifications of being parents. That is mistake number one. Mistake number two is in not understanding the symbiotic relationship of mother and child. Mistake number three is in taking a violent means to solve his problem, the guy is not ready to be a dad. If they had discussed it as a couple they could jointly decide to abort the child in the legal window of opportunity. If the baby is in late stages of development, he could have ended up causing her to go into labor, having a premature baby, and then incurred hospital costs related to that, not to mention any brain injury the baby might have suffered. The woman suffered battery as well.
All in all, if society were to be completely honest collectively, this would be a lesson in reverence for all life and the relationship of mother and baby, and we would outlaw abortion except under the most extreme conditions. Perhaps this is a lesson in the irony of thinking that a woman has a right to her own body but the unborn baby does not, as well as the role of the father in deciding to have children.

It's more of a moral issue, which is highly subjective. I personally would take responsibility for the life I created because I want to, that's my right and my opinion. The consequence of sex is you have babies. Someone could easily just punch their baby's mother in the uterus or refuse to pay child support and take off, that is their will and morally the choice is theirs. But the laws are there to protect the child who is a completely innocent party.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Clearly there is some kind of misunderstanding in personal communication here. The man did not discuss the pregnancy with the woman, and discuss together the ramifications of being parents. That is mistake number one. Mistake number two is in not understanding the symbiotic relationship of mother and child. Mistake number three is in taking a violent means to solve his problem, the guy is not ready to be a dad. If they had discussed it as a couple they could jointly decide to abort the child in the legal window of opportunity. If the baby is in late stages of development, he could have ended up causing her to go into labor, having a premature baby, and then incurred hospital costs related to that, not to mention any brain injury the baby might have suffered. The woman suffered battery as well.
All in all, if society were to be completely honest collectively, this would be a lesson in reverence for all life and the relationship of mother and baby, and we would outlaw abortion except under the most extreme conditions. Perhaps this is a lesson in the irony of thinking that a woman has a right to her own body but the unborn baby does not, as well as the role of the father in deciding to have children.

Agreed, they should make abortion illegal except in extreme conditions. It seems like mens rights groups like the poster below me said, is trying to force abortion on women. To protect future children and women we should try to make abortion illegal.

I believe some kind of "Men Rights" group is trying to push a law, where if there is an unplanned pregnancy, the men don't have to pay child support if they were for an abortion. Since the women have the right to choose to have the baby or not, men get the right to pay child support or not. Sounds fair to me.


I apologize if this has already been posted, and for not having any source. It's just what I heard months back that sounded pretttyyyyy coool.

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by CobraCommander


Not his body, not his, choice, not his responsibility. If she can't afford to raise a child, then she should have made sure she didn't get pregnant.

dude, last i checked it takes TWO to make a baby

Yet only one has the choice.

Because the fetus grows in only one body not in both. Men just need to accept that they don't have that back up plan if their sex partner becomes pregnant. It's not like they've not been informed of their limited choices.

Originally posted by anicetus
I believe some kind of "Men Rights" group is trying to push a law, where if there is an unplanned pregnancy, the men don't have to pay child support if they were for an abortion. Since the women have the right to choose to have the baby or not, men get the right to pay child support or not. Sounds fair to me.


I apologize if this has already been posted, and for not having any source. It's just what I heard months back that sounded pretttyyyyy coool.

edit on 10/12/10 by anicetus because: (no reason given)

This will never pass into law in any country purely because the governments do not want to be responsible for financially providing for all the children. It's that simple. Men can carry on as much as they like. They will never win this battle. The best thing a guy can do is to lobby for the male pill.

reply to post by Bee2010


No choice is no choice.

reply to post by Bee2010


This already happens in many states.

If a woman denies a man's choice in an abortion and chooses to have the child, the man can deny parenthood.

Equal is equal. Get over it.

So a man and a woman have consenting sex. They are not married. They are in a serious relationship, but hadn't yet talked in depth about marriage.

1. They both understand that pregnancy is a possibility.

2. The man used a condom.

3. The woman is on the pill.

4. The woman takes a Plan B pill the next morning.

5. The woman still gets pregnant.

*Before I continue, I am fully aware that there is an astronomically small chance that this could occur. But it could occur, so let's play a game of hypotheticals.*

The woman immediately tells the man that she is pregnant. Both are neither happy nor sad, just dumbfounded. They decide to take a few days to talk about whether or not to have the child. Several days pass, perhaps even weeks.

Hypothetical Case 1:

The woman decides that she would like to finish school, or focus on her (perhaps new) job, etc. rather than go nine months of gaining weight, having cravings, developing morning sickness, and all the other perks/disadvantages that come from pregnancy.

The man decides that he wants the child. The prospect of being a father appeals to him, or perhaps he has concluded that he thinks abortion is morally/religiously wrong.

According to the law, the woman has the say here. She will be able to get an abortion, and it is completely irrelevant what the man wants. Maybe the man gets over it and they continue to stay together, get married, and eventually have kids. Maybe not.

Hypothetical Case 2:

The woman decides that she wants the baby. She has concluded that this life growing inside of her is too precious (or whatever else the case may be) to forgo the possibility of life.

The man decides that he wants to finish school, or wait until he has a more stable job (or even a job at all), etc. He has concluded that he does not want to be a father.

According to the law, the woman has the say here. She will be able to have the baby, and it is completely irrelevant what the man wants. Maybe he gets over it and takes the responsibility that was forced upon him (yes, forced, because despite their best efforts a pregnancy still occurred and once that happened his voice is meaningless) and they marry and live happily ever after. Or, maybe he decides that he can no longer be with this woman, and they split up. According to the law, he will have to pay child support.


In both cases, the man's opinions are irrelevant. In the end, it is left up to the woman. Why?

It isn't because he should have known better than to have sex. He did know better. She knew better as well. They took every realistic measure available to avoid pregnancy. The only thing they could have done was not have sex. True. But, that is totally unrealistic in this day and age. Telling a young adult couple to not have sex is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a labradoodle. It just doesn't work.

Is it perhaps because the woman is the one who undergoes the bodily changes? Because she undergoes the risks associated with pregnancy? This seems the only logical reason I can think of. Some men may say, "Well her body changes but I have to put up with her!" This is also true. Hormones go rampant during pregnancy, and often pregnant women's emotions are erratic. Some women might reply, "Yeah, maybe we can have brief moments of frustration due to hormones, but putting up with that is nowhere near as dramatic (or perhaps traumatic) as the bodily changes we undergo over the course of nine months." I will concede this point as well.

To summarize so far we have: if a woman becomes pregnant the potential life of the baby is 100% in her hands. Why? Because she undergoes the most influential changes during pregnancy. [This is just the best reason I can come up with. I haven't thought of everything, so if anyone has a better reason please say it!]

BUT, if a woman has the right to deny the life of a baby because it causes too much of a change in her life - mentally, emotionally, and physically - then why is acceptable to force a man to go through a dramatic change? What dramatic change you ask? Paying child support. The woman can say, "No thank you. Too much risk involved with this baby." The man cannot say, "No thank you. Too much risk involved with this baby."

Now I ask you, how is that fair? How is that just? I have provided a scenario and explained it from both sides as objectively as I could. It seems to me that if a woman can decide to have an abortion, a man should be able to decide to not pay child support. Especially since the woman's best argument for her decision (particularly in the hypothetical scenarios I have described) is due to the risk involved. If risk = choice for women, why can't it be the same for men?

My final thought on the matter: I know that if a woman has a baby and the father isn't legally forced to pay child support that the burden will undoubtedly fall on someone else. It has been suggested that it would fall to the taxpayer. Why is that such a problem? If half the crap (I don't literally mean half) our government spends our money on was put to better use - child support for single mothers, for instance - why is that so bad? I would have no problem paying for a life to live. I consider that a good, moral thing. I would prefer my taxes be spent on supporting a life rather than on developing new ways of killing each other, or any slew of things our taxes go to that are either downright worthless or budgeted improperly.

Whether you agree or not, though, isn't the most important thing for the man and woman to have equal rights when a new life is involved? Don't the rights come before the money issues? I am sure someone could come up with a better solution than taxpayers' money. If not, someone could definitely rework the budget in such a way that money isn't wasted nearly as much as it is, and we might not even have to pay a dime more.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


I'm not for one or the other side. Which states are you referring to? How long do you think it will be until the government scraps the legislation that enable men to opt out?
Its a bad move for any economy.

Originally posted by Bee2010


Because the fetus grows in only one body not in both. Men just need to accept that they don't have that back up plan if their sex partner becomes pregnant. It's not like they've not been informed of their limited choices.

Yet the mental,physical,and emotional burden of abortion is still placed on a man who has no say in the matter,because of these limitations of pregnancy. I find that highly hypocritical,that those burdens should be placed at all,if someone has no say. Especially when women have for years cried equal rights. There is NO cherry picking EQUALITY. You could even say Abortion is sexist.

reply to post by CobraCommander


So get angry at the government in your state. Don't get angry at women for having a say over their own bodies.
Push for a safe and effective male pill. There really should have been one on the market by now anyway.
You don't want kids? Protect yourself any way you can.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
reply to post by Bee2010

 

This already happens in many states.

If a woman denies a man's choice in an abortion and chooses to have the child, the man can deny parenthood.

Equal is equal. Get over it.

edit on 1-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)

That is how it should be, but I have yet to see anyone post evidence that the myth is actually true.