I think you just said the inside thing out loud.
Women don't need your permission.
Men don't need permission to not-pay for unwanted kids either. Somehow we don't mind women wanting to get rid of unwanted responsibility, and we loathe men who do that, with both financial fines and even jail times.
Before a child is born the mother faces significant risks to her health, mental well-being, relationships, and career if she gives birth.
It's reasonable then that women and their doctors have a final say in whether a pregnancy continues.
If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any. After a popped condom, they have many different ways to get rid of unwanted children, from a day after pill (plan B), to adoption after birth. A man is always one bad condom away from 20+ (up to 26 years in my country) of child support for an unwanted kid, while a woman has all the decision power to bring (or not bring) the child to life.
Those who think this is still unfair have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence. And they can negotiate with their partners about other forms of contraception.
Neither do women, if they don't want to, day-after pills are cheap, and even free in many countries, so are abortions (USA might be an exception here). Having a child in current times is a choice.
> have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence
So do women. But if that fails, they have more options to still not-have a baby (to take a day-after pill/planB or abort...). In my country, vasectomy is even illegal before age 35 (same for women, no permanent steriliziation before that).
The "if you don't want children, don't have sex" sounds very anti-abortionist to me... but to you, it seems fine, if it's targeted towards men.
I don't have to like your opinion, and I don't have much confidence that anyone here will change it. However, the reason I spoke up in the first place was to point out that the first step towards bodily autonomy is the acknowledgement of basic human equality.
The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant.
Go fight for men's rights, if you feel that is what you need to do... but leave women out of it. The opposite of women's rights is not men's rights.
You're changing my words here, I never said any of that, you know what I meant, and you're trying to make me look like a sexist by misrepresenting what I said, so don't.
A paper abortion is giving up all the rights and obligation toward the kid ON PAPER. You just sign a document.
The woman still has all the body autonomy and all the options, from a day after pill, abortion, adoption or raising the kid if she wants.
Yes, men should have rights too, both reproductive ones (paper abortions) and body autonomy (not being forced to die in a war). So don't be a sexist.
The parent meant that carrying a baby to term has consequences for women's health regardless of what happens to the child afterwards. There are short term, long term and permanent physical and mental (via physical hormone changes) effects. Especially if a cesarean is needed, recovery can take a long time.
By your logic women should not be able to abort because there's still kids in third world countries suffering from hunger.
No, by my logic, if women have that option, men should be given a "way out" from unwanted kids too, even if it's due to financial or other non-medical reasons. Obviously men cannot physically abort, so a paper abortion (giving up all rights and responsibilities) would be a way out for them/us.
If we're talking about abortions as medical solutions (risky pregnancies, medical issues with the baby, etc...) then sure.
If we give half the population an option to get rid of a result of a five-minute mistake, for personal, financial and even for reasons such as "I just don't want one now", why not give that way-out to the other half involved in that five-minute fuckup? Otherwise we're literally talking about 20+ years of relatively huge consequences.
In some states this is legal, so long as there is someone else willing to step up and provide for the child. Consider that the child cannot provide for itself, and the father has equal obligation to do so. If he didn't intend to produce a child then he should have taken reasonable measures. Women technically have a final say because they take on more risk and physical labor to carry the child to term.
Like what? A condom? That applies to women too, if they don't intend to have kids, use a condom (rape excluded). But we give them ther ways out too. If the condom pops, the next step would be a day after pill. That applies to women, men get no say in that. Abortion? Same. What reasonable measures does a man have after a bad condom?
Once the child is born their legal obligations are similar. Both are subject to child support if they want 'out', unless they agree to put the child up for adoption.
Arguably this means men need to plan ahead more or take additional precautions. I don't think that's unreasonable considering men will never have to pay the physical price of childbearing.
Noone can plan for a popped condom, and pregnancy comes when aditional precautions fail, and they fail for both people involved, not just for men... but we then give only one of them an option to get rid of 20+ years of responsibilities.
What I do (thankfully it has happened only a couple of times) is to buy the pill together with the woman at the next day and be present when she takes it. Trust, but verify.
Just don’t ejaculate inside - then no baby
How ?
By your logic, this solves all the problems, and we only need abortions in case of rape or medical issues with a wanted child.
But we both know that people will still have sex, create unwanted babies (well, still fetuses), and both people involved should have a right to get out of unwanted responsibilities.
Do we want more sex ? Yes
Do we want less babies ? Yes
Both are doable
Women don’t need the guy to cum inside for pleasure - that’s the only thing that leads to babies.
Guys have total control here:
- pull out
- wear a condom (or two)
Ejaculation is what, 5-10 seconds of pleasure - you are going to create a baby for that ?
Seems the juice is not worth the squeeze here
Edit: formatting
Pulling out doesn't work in many cases, and two condoms are dangerous (i have no idea why you are spreading the two-condom idea, it increases the chances of ripping).
So yeah, if women don't want kids, don't let guys cum inside them (rape excluded) so by your logic, they don't need abortions (except for rape and medical reasons), right?
But then they can get a day after (plan B) pill.
Or a few different kinds of abortion.
Or give the kid up for adoption after it's born.
We give zero ways-out to men.
How ?
> We give zero ways-out to men.
Pull out
This is like listening to an anti-abortionist.
But after people fail to do this, we give women an option to get out of a few decades of responsibility and financial burden, and men should have that right too.
In procreation men are involved, but women are committed
Do your part - don’t leave it to chance
Full male control: - Pull-out
- Condom
- Double-condom
Be a man, take full ownership of your own financial future
If women decide to either take a planB or or get pregnant and give birth to a baby, why should a man cary the financial consequences of that decision?
> In procreation men are involved, but women are committed
How? Women can get a pill or abort, men are commited to pay for 20+ years of something they didn't want.
> Do your part - don’t leave it to chance
So, would you tell women this? "You don't need abortions, just do you part, don't leave it to chance! Pull out, condoms, and double condoms!"? Also, double condoms are outright dangerous, so is pulling out.
> Be a man, take full ownership of your own financial future
Yes, this is the idea... you didn't want a kid, a mistake happened, you need a way out too. With modern medicine and some quick action, having a baby or not has become a fully womans choice.
And there are cases, where you don't even need to have sex to be forced to pay child support:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11/woman-who-impregnated-se...
Even statuatory rape victims:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statuto...
That’s my point - you can spend your life cursing your fate OR control your actions before it happens
Don’t leave it up to your partner, to the state laws, or chance
Should be taught in schools honestly - guys are in control of the sperm, no one forces them
Women only get pregnant when the guy finishes inside - 5 seconds of pleasure, not worth the 18+ years
It's funny that this is somehow forgotten when we're talking about men... if we allow women to abort children due to any reason, even financial ones or "i just don't want a kid now", paper abortions for men should be a thing too (sign a paper, give up all rights and obligation to/from the kid).