I'm pretty sure doctors can't do procedures without being on some kind of a "approved list" of procedures (since anything outside - eg. experimental procedures - take a LOT of paperwork and liability paperwork).

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.

Women who abandon children after birth still face consequences.

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.

> Women who abandon children after birth still face consequences.

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.

Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate.

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.

> Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate.

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.

The problem with the position that you're attempting to justify is that you are creating a false dichotomy; aggrieved men cannot have sex without responsibility and so you feel it's within reasonable purview to apply arbitrary restrictions on what a women can do with their body.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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

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.

How is this problem an opposite argument against women allowed to have an abortion? Surely these are two parallel issues that can be solved separately from each other.

By your logic women should not be able to abort because there's still kids in third world countries suffering from hunger.

> 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.

I don't understand how this is directly related to the women's abortion issue though. This is whataboutism at it's best.

It's not.

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.