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.
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.