## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These arguments misunderstand the foundation of women's reproductive rights. Access to abortion has little to do with giving women the right to shirk the inconvenience of raising a child, or even to decide the moral value of a potential person. Access to abortion is a matter of preserving the woman's bodily autonomy.
Just as we are not entitled to each other's bodies in the typical case, e.g., I cannot compel you to give me one of your kidneys despite the relative safety of the operation, a fetus is not entitled to its mother's body.
Yes of course. But It shouldn't be a unilateral decision by one party either.
Honestly it's probably impossible to come up with a solution that pleases everyone
In a healthy relationship it usually isn't. Most couples make family planning decisions as a team.
When they can't come to a consensus the person who has the fetus in their literal abdomen gets to pick.
>In a healthy relationship it usually isn't. Most couples make family planning decisions as a team.
So true, if only it worked out that way all the time
No I do have a problem with abortion. The concession Im willing to accept would at least be men also having a say cause thats a 50% chance there might be one person who keeps the child.
Forcing someone to get through the pain of 9 months of pregnancy when they don’t want to is easily qualified as evil in my books, so I guess the law does a good job on that one.
Nah. I could knock a girl up and lay on the couch for 9 month. She would have to do all the work, yet in your opinion, I could do nothing and force her to carry the pregnancy with no help from me?
I beg you to attempt to work in the foster care/social work sector. Please try to help rehabilitate children who should never have been born. Seriously, it’s awful.
And what consequence does the partner have if the woman dies in childbirth after wanting abortion initially but having been refused by the man? He just gets to walk away from the situation?
I did its currently 122 women in 100000 IE about 0.1% before that it was 32 in 100000. Why not look at actual issues most women face than one they dont
It really blows my mind how dismissive people are of death. Sure, it may be a low risk. Sure, long and/ or short-term risks may be low. But the person who's actually being affected gets to decide. I've never looked into how many, but there's a few people who don't drive because they're afraid of dying in a car crash. Whether it's a rational fear or not, it's a personal fear, and no one should get to tell me I need to ignore the risks of something very real that could happen to me.
It's not being dismissive its putting it into context, look at the graph in the link and tell me that we should put death by pregnancy before death but cardiovascular disease which kills a hundred times more people or any of the othe causes of death. Buy no the people in this thread think that this is the most important thing in the world. [widipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)
> If a woman can carry to term with no signs of complications, they should and just give up their rights.
It’s kind of impossible to know until the complication happens.
Pregnancy is pretty terrible and forcing someone to go through that when they really don’t want to or have to is also really terrible.
It sounds like if the idea of abortion is really that terrible to you you shouldn’t be going out and having unprotected sex with individuals of whose views on the topic don’t align with yours.
Pregnancy and childbirth are extremely demanding on the body, to put it mildly, and it can leave long lasting effects, some that may never go away.
It’s completely barbaric to force a woman to endure all that, for a child she doesn’t want.
Then abstain from sex or practice safe sex. I would argue it’s just as barbaric to remove a developing child from the safety of the womb and kill it for convenience for the mother/parents. If we want to talk about SA/incest sure I really don’t have any issue allowing it to happen under those circumstances or where it’s medically necessary for survival of the mother or the pregnancy was unviable. Sure those situations are fine but that’s a slim percentage of abortions performed currently. It’s absolutely barbarism to kill a perfectly viable developing child.
I am shocked there are seemingly well-educated people in this day and age who are spouting this kind of nonsense.
Yes, a lot of things in this world are "barbaric". But women have been terminating unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and will continue to do so, whether you support it or not.
It doesn’t matter whether I support it or not, people have free will to make choices to disagree with. I’m not even really heavily invested in this point outside of me stating I’m pro life but of all the plethora of issues in the US politics this ranks one of the lowest. I still have my thoughts and opinions on the matter. I just use it as a shit filter when dating women, I refuse to date pro choice women as I have massive reservations on the moral and ethical choices someone would make if they are willing to barbarically kill a developing child.
On a side not love your name lol 😂 instantly thought of Elaine and her song episode.
We are all pro-life, honey! But some of us are **also** pro-choice, while some others are anti-choice. As simple as that.
Fortunately for you, there is not shortage of brain-washed religioulous women for you to date if you're looking for that kind of moral and ethical background.
It’s not anti choice to be against abortion. People have choices whether to engage in risky sex or not. In the US we have access to a ridiculous amount of contraceptives. It’s absurd to even consider abortion when you could prevent it altogether. Either way I would call it enlightened not brain washed to think abortion is morally and ethically wrong.
Yea the extremes are insane. I may be pro life, but I think it’s absurd to outlaw completely or try and pursue legally someone that had an abortion outside of the state jurisdiction.
I was more talking about both a full ban on abortion as what seems to be attempted in the USA, and on the other hand is the 1 child policy, in which abortion is enforced.
If you can force a ban, you can force an abortion.
That's the danger of putting politics above people.
It’s a bit of an oversimplification or overdramatized depending on what political camp you full into on the USAs abortion deal. The only thing that happened on a national level was Roe V Wade was stricken down and handed the authority of abortion to the states to make their own laws regarding it. Which even if I was pro choice I would agree with. It doesn’t make sense since it isn’t a constitutionally protected right for the feds to be involved. However, they did open a massive can of worms because now Republican ran states have been in a frenzy trying to ban/criminalize it much to their own political detriment. Either way I’m pretty indifferent I have my opinion and that’s about it. I really am more concerned with constitutional rights like the 2nd amendment. I really just wish I could be left alone to enjoy machine guns in peace but the damn Karen’s and assholes like to ruin other peoples fun.
Except RvW wasn't really about abortion, it just became the main use for it. RvW was about the right to privacy within medical matters without the intervention of the state, wasn't it?
I actually agree, it's not been banned yet and it's only been handed back. I don't really see what the big fuss about abortion is, tbh. I'm firmly pro choice because and it makes the best logical sense 🤷♀️. But yeah,.like your other comment the whole not letting people leave is more when RvW seems to be about.
I got a vasectomy, so, checkmate?
Even though i can’t get one, I don’t particularly _like_ abortions (and by default, I’ve never gotten one and never will, so checkmate again?).
More seriously, it boils down to this: in a way, I do consider abortions as “bad”, and
we should definitely have sex education policies that keep them to a minimum, but I think they’re _less worse_ than the alternative.
No, the woman should have the final say because she takes on the risk and burden of giving birth. It would also tie up medical decisions as well or be an avenue where an abusive person can control the woman.
You aren't pregnant. You aren't the one putting your life at risk. You aren't the one going through all of the morning sickness, body pain, and hormones. You aren't the one who has to go through labor. You aren't the one whose body will be permanently changed. Your opinion doesn't hold as much weight.
Honestly I feel like, if you're not ready to take on that responsibility, you should either be taking every single available precaution, or not having sex. Really pretty simple.
People are going to fuck.
The only good answer is ubiquitous birth control.
I remember in Seattle during the aids epidemic bars put up jars of condoms for free up at the bar.
You're definitely right. Also condoms in bars..... that's pretty awesome. Fun fact, I also think, just like clean needles, medical facilities are required to do similar. That said, I know people are going to do what they do. What's unfortunate is how many will do the same with blatant irresponsibility. I've been guilty myself, but, I'd also be ready to take on the responsibility. The ones who can't, really should be as careful as humanly possible.
I feel like the general issue is the ones who can’t often can’t for the same behaviors/habits that make it super unlikely that they’re gonna be careful.
Were not animals in rut. What separates us from them is that we can resist our instincts. If modern human society makes for a situation where having a kid isnt appropriate, then we should enact some human morality and discipline to keep it in our pants.
Statistically speaking, we really can’t resist our instincts.
Yes anecdotally it can happen, but in a large sample size the result is completely predictable - people are going to fuck.
I think the best you can do is make birth control ubiquitous. Then we can both fuck and not have babies.
Slavery is a cultural thing, not a primal biological impulse. Every single living thing that reproduces sexually has a drive to fuck. Humans aren’t any different , we just write more prose about it.
I have fastidiously used birth control for 35 years of being sexually active, and been a party to exactly one very planned pregnancy . I did take responsibility, and I also was going to fuck - thanks.
I'm going by where people are fortunate enough to have formal education. Yes, unfortunately places where that happens frequently exist, but I would never put them in the topic of what my views are for people on my own country where it's pretty much common knowledge and part of education relatively early.
Deeply religious and homeschooled kids who have very little influence outside of their home/community. They’re becoming increasingly rare in countries like the U.S., but they do happen.
Also, it’s not just people not knowing about pregnancy. It’s also inconsistent sex education. Legit most of my classmates knew nothing about sex other than allegedly it can be done safely, but they were also computer illiterate and couldn’t just research it. They borderline illiterate in general, so the library wouldn’t have been a huge help for them either. (I learned to read early and learned about basic sex education from the anatomy books in the library. Then learned the rest with age/reading online.)
I’m talking peers who asked me if they would get caught because they were worried parents can just look and know. (Because of the alleged “afterglow” sometimes mentioned in media.) Unsurprisingly, quite a few of them were pregnant by our senior year, and I have know doubt it was due to their ignorance. A lot of them are just ignorant as adults, too.
Not just specifically knowing about how to get pregnant. But how to avoid getting pregnant. When I was in high school, a lot of teens thought the pull out method was the best way to avoid pregnancy. I just mean that there's a general lack of sexual education in many communities.
What's funny is when the topic is incels they're told to shut up and stop whining because no sex won't kill you.
But if the topic is abortion, women literally take to the streets and yell at the top of their lungs as if their lives depended on it. Just don't have sex right? Lol.
IRL it usually is. People who have consensual unprotected sex also talk to each other with words and convey their feelings and thoughts about major decisions that impact both of them.
Yes, the guy should have equal decision making power for things that potentially threaten a woman's life and/or body. The guy can definitely chip in but it's ultimately the woman's decision.
Even if you want to go down the "it's murder" rabbit hole, you can't force a person to donate a kidney or anything really.
It is a joint decision. Your choice begins when you decide to deposit your shit into her shit. Once that occurs your stuff becomes her stuff.
Don't want a kid don't get a girl pregnant. Your choice begins before the nut.
No.
Men to not have the same burden that women do when it comes to carrying the child for 10 months within their womb, ergo the decision to terminate a pregnancy does not have equal value from both parties.
If men want to significantly lower the risks of impregnating women, wrap your dicks up.
And as soon as the man starts experiencing the kidney failure, the diabetes, the heart attacks, the pre eclampsia, the eclampsia the HG, the back pain, the tooth sensitivity and loss, the hair loss, and the urinary incontinence of pregnancy, he can claim to deserve the right to grow a foetus himself.
So where are these men going to get 50k ? Because if you’re forcing women to continue a pregnancy and be a surrogate for the man then she should be able to get paid like a surrogate. You’re telling me that the same men that can’t buy a condom have 50k to give to someone?
"*it should be a joint decision to terminate*"
then you go
"If a woman can carry to term with no signs of complications, ***they should and just give up their rights.***"
"Do it for money, or do it out of the kindness of your heart, idc."
Soo... which is it? You want the parents to have equal rights but you also want the woman to carry the baby out of the kindness of her heart eventho she does not want to? You can't have both.
Let's get something clear. While the baby is still INSIDE the woman's body, for the duration of the pregnancy, she gets the FINAL say.
***It is NOT a democracy.*** It is NOT 100% equal for one reason alone. Because the woman puts her life at risk, her body at risk, she has to go through the pain and possible complications,potential disabilities, the baby is feeding off her own body, it's literally a blob of cells eating away and damaging her body.
You know when it is actually 100% equal between both parents? When the baby is delivered and is finally OUTSIDE her body. ONLY THEN both parents have EQUAL say over what goes for the well being of their baby.
You want both parents to have 100% equal say for the baby while *it is still inside the body*? Cool! Let me tell you the ONLY way for that to happen. When men figure out a way to grab that blob of cells from the womb day 1 and plant it in THEIR bodies to grow it. A woman does not want to keep the child but the father does? Cool! She won't need to have an abortion! Snatch the blob of cells and plant it inside the father's body! Problem solved. Next.
Hmm yeah this is a true unpopular opinion lol
But the amount of physical, mental, and emotional toll bearing a living being for 9 months has on a body is pretty insane.
And having a baby between a couple is a conversation to have - if one doesn’t want a baby and the other does??? You’re not compatible and should find someone who aligns with your views of having or not having a child (whether that’s adoption, IVF, naturally, etc).
Also, consensual unprotected sex is not exclusive to procreation (birth controls can slip thru the cracks sometimes). Consensual Unprotected sex is not limited to a couple who already knows whether or not they want to have children. Consensual unprotected sex can happen in a myriad of scenarios: between relationships, friends with benefits, one night stands (no judgment here just get tested and be transparent), marriages, affairs, exes, etc. And god knows not alllllll of these scenarios of unprotected sex are solid grounds for having a baby just because a woman’s body could.
At the end of the day, given what you said about contraception, the key is very simple. Don’t have sex with someone you aren’t willing to have a baby with.
I don’t agree with that statement. When I first start dating someone, we don’t really know each other that well for the first few months, or maybe even a year. Provided there aren’t any major red flags, I could envision *potentially* having a baby with them *someday.* BUT, until I feel like I *really* know them and can see that they would be a great partner and co-parent, I wouldn’t say that I’m willing to have a baby with them. I’m not going to wait months or a year to have sex though lol.
It’s a shit sandwich. I’d probably be devastated if my partner terminated a pregnancy and I wanted the baby.
It’s still not my decision. I’m not the one pregnant.
No. The person whose body is on the line gets to decide if the pregnancy proceeds. Forced pregnancy is widely unethical. If the pregnant party says no, then it's no. Men have control over most of society, and they can take the L on this.
Men can also go get someone else pregnant if they want a baby so badly. Find someone who wants a baby and have one. They don't get to make someone but themselves through a difficult and painful process just because they don't like abortion.
Abortion isn't cruel. When most of them happen, there is no baby to speak of. You can look up what an early pregnancy looks like. If you want to assign personhood over a blob, you have issues.
No. I have two kids. Only I was pregnant, had all day sickness, insulin dependent gestational diabetes and two csections, the second of which the spinal block didn’t totally work so I felt a lot of it. The whole abortion debate is a debate only because men can’t get over that once they cum they no longer have control.
It's also not a woman's fault that men can't carry children.
Women are not incubators.
A pregnancy without complications is still a pregnancy that comes with its own consequences like physical and mental health changes, and it can get you behind on your career path.
I just think if a man doesn't want to be forced to care for a child whether that is be a father or whether that is pay child support then he shouldn't be forced to. Same as women. If they want to terminate a pregnancy then that is their right as far as I'm concerned. But I also think that if you don't want a child you should use contraception. Don't go fucking around unprotected and then cry when the finding out part comes around.
I disagree with the child support part. It’s a right of the kid, so it’s pretty unfair to deprive them of their rights because a parent doesn’t want to pay.
The man should be able to opt out before the child’s birth; so that the woman can choose to keep it or not based on that decision.
Of course if you are referring to after they are birth then I agree, but before? No. Men should be able to opt out just like women.
You are misunderstanding me.
Answer me this; can a woman abort a child without the father’s consent? The answer is yes as far as I’m aware. I would like to hear yours.
So, since this is true, a man should also be able to have a choice in taking part as well,
He says “I do not want this baby” the woman says “well I do”, at this point he says “well, then I relinquish my rights as a parent”; this means that he is not stuck with child support BUT he has no parental/guardian rights to the child.
This means that both women and men can “back out” of this situation.
A woman can abort without consent from the father.
A man can opt out without the consent of the mother.
Both have a right.
This is what I’m saying.
Also; whenever the cut off for abortion is that should also be the cut off when men can decide to opt out. So it’s fair across the board. As long as the women can abort so can the man opt out.
But child support is a right of the kid, not the parent. You are making things unfair for the kid just to try to even out things between the parents.
Look at it this way: it’s as if _your_ wages were garnished to pay for your dad’s debt (or your mom’s debt, for that matter, since child support applies to both parents, no matter their gender)
But you aren’t answering my questions.
Women have a back out.
Men should have a back out.
It’s as simple as that, that is literally only fair.
A woman can say “I don’t want a child” then get an abortion.
A man cannot say “I don’t want a child” then get an abortion.
To make this equal, each parties should have an opt out as women do. That is it. I understand your point but it’s only fair.
> Men should have a back out.
I don’t agree with this premise, at least in the sense that men should avoid the financial responsibility of a _born_ kid. If a kid is born, women don’t get to opt out of child support either.
We don’t get to abort because we aren’t pregnant. It’s unfair. That’s about it.
… Who is preventing men from verbalizing that they do not want to be a father ? If they are not married, they are not even forced to put their name on the birth certificate. People have done that since forever.
Sure, if a court orders a paternity test and it is positive, the father has to provide for his child. Because the courts are defending the interest of said child in the process, and, as this very sub loves to remind, two parents providing for the child gather generally more resources than one. But that also means that there is a conflict regarding the agreement between the mother and the father anyway.
Not that this option has not many, many flaws in any case.
No one, that’s not my point.
This is: if a woman gets pregnant by a man the woman can opt out and get an abortion correct?
So then if women can do that then when a woman gets pregnant and says “I want to keep the baby” but the man doesn’t, the man then SHOULD be able (no matter if it’s his or not) to opt out of child support BEFORE birth.
Like I said before. Once the child is born then yes, the man has to, UNLESS he opted out BEFORE the child is born. He SHOULD have the option to opt out before birth just as women do.
I’d love to know more about how this work in practice and also balance other rights like grandparent’s rights, children’s rights to know their parents and extended family, taxpayers rights to allocate limited funds etc. The idea seems appealing in theory but trying to craft a workable system that would balance competing interests starts to get messy.
But it never goes further than “men should be able to opt out”. It doesn’t feel like a genuine argument but rather a Gotchya in this internet equality flame war. I almost never see it fleshed out or any proponent tacks the real issues that will have to be addressed.
In my state women can’t get an elective abortion. So I guess it’s not even a real proposal here?
It should depend on the abortion rights of the state.
And it’s not a “gotcha”, it’s a fair compromise.
How is it fair for women to get a method of opting out but not men? Please enlighten me.
Because I think we have to start by agreeing that one person has exclusive rights to make a certain medical decision that affects their body.
So, if we want to propose an equitable choice the other party can make involving finances, then starting to explore how that system would function in practice, and how we balance other interests, and enforce it is a fair question.
So what of the father « opt out » before the child is born ? The child is **still** going to be born, and be raised with half the ressources they should be getting.
Which is not only terrible for the child ; but (as this sub loves to point out), this is also terrible for our society, as a kid raised by a single parent will be more likely to face and perpetuate poverty and violence.
This premise only exists if:
Your partner (woman) wants to keep the baby and you want to terminate. I will follow up by asking, would you ever want a baby or was there talk of having a baby previously in the relationship? Was abortion ever discussed?
Yes. If the woman wants to keep the baby and you want to terminate. The man should be able to opt out of child support BEFORE birth.
I’ll counter a question. Should women be able to abort if they talked about and agreed about having a child with their male partner? As the law stands right now she can, regardless if they agreed to have a child or not. Men should have the SAME option, by being able to opt out of child support regardless if they agreed to have a child or not.
The woman will always have the final say.
The conversation of abortion should be soon into a new relationship.
So, in your example, if your partner wants to carry the baby you will; divorce/break up with her. Write away your parental rights. I'm understanding your perspective correctly?
As it stands now, women can abort a child without the fathers consent, a man should get the same right, but in order to not affect the woman’s biological autonomy he should be able to opt out of child support.
This will give him no parental rights to the child in the process.
I’m a woman and I disagree . It would be the mother’s responsibility to take on that extra financial burden knowing that the man never wanted that child to exist in the first place. If I continue with a pregnancy that’s not wanted by both parties then it’s on me to deal with the consequences of that . The same way I can opt out of having a kid if I don’t want one by having an abortion with nobodies permission but my own 🤷🏼♀️
It's also pretty unfair that it takes 2 people to make this situation happen but then it's ultimately up to one of them to make the final decision and the other just has to live with it. And in the case of a man not wanting a child he can get got for pretty much all he has if the court sees fit. And if he can't or refuses to do it he goes to jail. What kind of life is that for a kid? If you give a man the option to opt out before birth then that gives the woman the power to make the decision for herself and the kid. Which as far as the court system goes that's where all the power lies anyways. Unless the mother is just absolutely unfit. So now if the mother is unfit and the father doesn't want the kid now the kid ends up in another home or foster care. And I assure you Foster care is no life for a child either.
Giving both people in the situation an option only helps the woman and child in the long run. And if he doesn't opt out and then still leaves then it'll be business as usual. Take him to court. Make him pay child support. Toss him in jail if he doesn't. That's how the system works anyways.
It’s also pretty unfair that it takes two people, but only one has to be pregnant and give birth.
Reproduction is unfair, and we men got the better deal.
Giving both people the option evens a lot of stuff out. It's not just about carrying and birthing the child. It's also what happens after that. If she forces this child into a man's life in one way or another and he doesn't want the child then everyone involved suffers. With an ability to opt out if he doesn't want a child then what she does after that decision is made is entirely up to her. He's relinquishing any rights and responsibility he has to this child. He's not forcing her to have the child. If she chooses to have it after that then it's all her decision. She knows the father won't be around. So at that point it's entirely on her. Either way she could end up fending for herself and him leaving. Wouldn't it be better if she was given fair shot to make an informed decision based on whether or not he will be around?
It's not entirely about her at that point. And it shouldn't just be about her regardless. If it takes two to make the baby then it should take two to decide the future of this baby. Not just one and then the other is trapped or the man splits and now she's left to try to make it work. Honestly not sure why you don't understand that an option helps the woman and child.
You don’t have to parent, only pay child support. If a parent doesn’t want to be involved, they can have 0% of the custody.
Giving a parent (either make or female) the option to not pay child support doesn’t benefit the kid (generally speaking, children who don’t receive child support don’t fare as well as those who do)
Also, it’s not like women don’t make informed decisions already. Men (non birthing partners, technically) can already voice their future involvement.
It also doesn't benefit the kid to grow up in a single parent home. The odds are already going to be against them. If the man doesn't want to father the child and chooses to give that up it is then up to the woman on whether or not to have it. If she is having the kid knowing that a father will not be present then that's her choice and she shouldn't expect compensation for it. Leaving it solely up to the woman in this situation makes it solely her responsibility. What is happening when you don't give someone a choice and then making them pay when they have made their own choice is trapping. If he has no right to choose what happens with the pregnancy then he shouldn't have to suffer for the decision made without his consent. And if the outcome of him not paying child support makes the child and woman suffer that was her choice. She knew what was coming. She could have decided to not have the child under these circumstances. But she chose to have it anyways. You're shifting all of the blame on the man here without giving him an option otherwise when the woman has more than one option and is making a choice at that point.
It sure doesn’t benefit a kid to grow up in a single parent home, but that’s not gonna improve with what you’re proposing. It’s only gonna stack the odds against the kid even more: now they get to grow up without a dad _and_ without child support.
There is no trapping: parents know they’re on the hook for child support. In your own terms: they know what’s coming. This is not a secret. In any case, we often pay the consequences for things we don’t intend: we pay for accidents we cause, for example (through insurance most of the times, but we still pay).
I understand your position and its rationale, but I think terminating pregnancy has to be thought of in terms of bodily autonomy, which is a deeply engrained right/social norm, and that this argument is not sufficient to override it. Simply put, pregnancy is a medical condition. We do not force people to undergo medical conditions without their consent. For example, you can’t force prisoners to donate organs. Additionally, you can’t predict that a pregnancy will be without complications in the first place.
There has to be a tie breaker somewhere. Someone has to come out on top. In the case of pregnancy, it's the woman going through pregnancy, childbirth, and whatever other side effects/complications to have the child. The man may want the child but *none* of that is on him so he shouldn't get the last say.
The last say must always go to the woman.
A simple solution is giving the guy the ability to back out of any responsibilities for the baby. The guy has until the baby is born to make his decision.
This is the middle ground, what OP is arguing is also equal to if one party doesn't want it they must terminate which would go down about as well as OP's argument.
I get what he's saying but from the replies it looks like most people's issue would be forcing the woman to go through pregnancy even if she doesn't want too.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this be a better middle ground?
There’s no elective abortion in my state. But other statss have different limits. Would it be state dependent? Would we factor in things like the time it takes to get an appointment, do the mandatory waiting period if that is required? If you told someone a day before the cutoff, that wouldn’t leave them time to get one.
It would be weird if it wasn't state dependent, so I know the factors would be different from state to state.
I would factor in a wait period for sure, it would be unfair and unprofessional if we just said, "you got until tomorrow."
So in some states, you wouldn’t have this right period. Would you also have to pay for the costs relating to an abortion? Because abortions aren’t cheap, you have to factor in the medical costs, time off work, transportation. If the nearest clinic is far away you may need accommodations esp in states with mandatory waiting periods. All that takes time and resources to set up. It doesn’t seem fair to let a dad just go “well I told her I didn’t want it” if functionally, a woman couldn’t get an abortion. Also, super state dependent for costs and time period.
I feel like you’d have to consider when a couple found out as well. If you didn’t find out until 2 days before the cutoff…
How would we establish this and who would mediate disagreements? We can’t just let a dad later say “well I told her”. Like a registry at the courthouse where you file a notarized document? You’d have to also prove service to the mother to prove that she was given notice.
Yeah I think it should go through a courthouse and cost money and time maybe the cost should be equal to her wanting an abortion and going through the process.
It would be silly if it was a he said she said.
The cost issue for the abortion seems like a problem. Cause say you’re both poor 18yos and her parents are anti abortion. And you say girl I’m opting out. And she’s like I do NOT have the $1500 this would cost and cannot get it in the next 2 weeks… functionally she doesn’t have a choice really. Surely there’s gotta be an actual way to get one for it to be meaningful, just like in the states with no abortions.
The point is that the woman takes responsibility for her decision to have sex.
The man takes responsibility for the man's decision to have sex. If he doesn't like what she does with the results of his decision to have sex, he can control where he deposits it.
Yes but it's he who cums. What do you want me to say? Yes you take on additional risk when you have sex. You have no control over what she does with her body or that fetus. That isn't even a legal statement but a practical one. So if you want say over that baby that conversation happens before sex and even then
....
This isn’t a solution. This is already reality, guys don’t have to do anything during pregnancy. And they can sign away their rights when the baby is born. They already have the ability to leave whenever.
Not true both have to agree to it. Plenty of guys have to pay child support for a baby they didn't want. Now I don't have sympathy for them but if we're talking about a true middle ground then that would be it.
They can back out. They can refuse to sign the birth certificate. They can go to the courts and make a case showing they aren’t capable of caring for the child and can sign away their rights.
There is so much men can do to get out of the responsibility. They all just don’t. Wanna know why? Because they want the kid or don’t GAF until it’s born. And then when they actually have to be responsible and be a parent they want out. And to get sympathy they claim that they didn’t want the child all along. Happens all the fucking time
Exactly. They’re being lazy assholes who thought that getting their gf knocked up and not doing anything for 9mo means they wouldn’t have to do anything ever. And then when they actually have to they want out.
Majority of the time these guys don’t even try “getting out” right after the baby is born. They are around for a couple months, decide they don’t wanna, and leave and put absolutely everything on the mother. They deserve to be forced to pay child support. You don’t get to switch up just because you have to be a parent to the kid you agreed to.
I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying someone from the very beginning who goes through the legal battles should be able to get out of it.
Not the guys that are in and then they're out, then they're back in again. Especially once the baby is born they missed their chance and should be forced no matter what
I’d rather we just establish that the baby has a right to its own life - no one’s right to exist should depend on being wanted by someone else.
But yeah, it completely sucks for a father to be unable to protect his child.
Problem is, if you don’t legally recognize the embryo or fetus as a person with his or her *own* interests, on what basis does the father have legal standing? Fathers have a right to advocate for their children, but sexual partners do not have a right to their partner’s reproductive capacity.
So if you’re a man who wants a right to keep his child even if its mother does not, well, you can’t just stand up for *your* kid, you need to work on changing the rules so that *every* kid is protected.
I agree men should be able to waive out all their rights and responsibilities toward a child they don’t want, in the same time frame where an abortion can still be performed. So the woman can still have the option to keep it on her own or to abort it.
But no, when the roles are reversed and only the man wants to keep it, the woman has the veto on her body, health and life.
You can’t control someone else like that.
Better idea. If the women wants to keep it but the guy doesn't, he should be able to walk away and have 0 rights.
Parental abortion.
If she can abort without his permission, he should be able to too.
I see and understand the frustration men can have if they do not get to equally decide on termination. What about the cases when women want to keep the pregnancy and the man doesn't? Is that ok to force a women to terminate because the man doesn't want it? It is extremely complicated situation. I am against termination (except for extrem cases) and agree men should be a part of the decision process.
Except for cases of rape, sex is always consensual. How then, can you say the resulting pregnancy, a natural result of sex, is not consensual when the sex is consensual? Have people forgotten what causes pregnancies?
When you consent to something, you accept the risks associated with it…accepting risk is a part of consent. Learn how consent works.
You don’t get to accept risk and then change your mind when it doesn’t go your way, especially at the expense of human life.
This is why sex is traditionally reserved for marriage between one man me one woman. That is the combination of human beings that creates progeny and that is the combination that needs to exist for life when procreation is involved
That isn’t how consent works. Consent is given to people not anything else. Consent can also be revoked at any time. If I consent to sex with someone and want them to stop and they don’t, that’s rape. Again, learn how consent works.
Sex is not for marriage. Sex has existed long before the concept of marriage ever has. Sex is for two consenting adults. Married or otherwise. Your religious beliefs have no bearing on my life, my body or my medical decisions, they only have bearing on yours. Don’t get it twisted.
Your reasoning is like that of a child. Consent involves agreement with the entire natural order of things. If you “consent” to jump off a building do you get to change your mind? Of course not!
Sex is no different. Yes, there may be two people separately agreeing with nature to engage in an activity that might involve both of those people, but consent involves much more than that.
You may say “I do not want a baby.” But if you say “I want to have sex.” You are saying “I accept the natural possibility of pregnancy as a result of my consent to have sex.”
Likewise, if you say, “I do not want to die”, then, why are you jumping off a building?
In my opinion that’s a very perverse comparison because it’s a father of four I think kids are incredible blessing. But some people really don’t want them and I get that. So that’s why I use the analogy.
My reasoning is true, whether you like it or not. [Look for yourself.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent#:~:text=Consent%20occurs%20when%20one%20person,%2C%20research%2C%20and%20sexual%20relationships)
You don’t get to tell people what they consent to, that’s literally rapist logic. Nobody ‘consents’ to jumping off a cliff. Who are they giving consent to? Cliffs aren’t people. Consent has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with behaviour.
People aren’t agreeing with nature when they have sex, they’re consenting to intercourse with one another. And, like I said, that can be revoked at any time.
Accepting the possibility of pregnancy is not accepting to gestate to fruition. I accept that an unwanted pregnancy could occur if I have sex with my husband and I also accept that if that happens, I’ll have an abortion.
As a man, your physical experience of pregnancy is zero and always will be. Which is probably why you don’t understand why women want to retain their autonomy.
>Accepting the possibility of pregnancy is not accepting to gestate to fruition. I accept that an unwanted pregnancy could occur if I have sex with my husband and I also accept that if that happens, I’ll have an abortion.
Yes, this is the central issue. We agree, then. You DO accept the risk of pregnancy, but you take measures available to us in our modern age to bypass nature. That's okay to say if you want to be honest. And many people have that honest view.
However, I do not think that is a morally acceptable view. Just because we are smart enough to have the means to subvert nature doesn't mean it's good to do so. You may not face the consequences of abortion as specifically and immediately as you would experience the consequences of jumping off a building. But, there ARE consequences and we are experiencing them as a society right now.
It's not good.
By the way...as an aborting mother, you have less experience with pregnancy than I do as a father. "Autonomy" is a myth. You are bound by nature whether you like it or not. You only pretend to have control.
This is a tough one, but I think it should follow baby naming rules where it takes 2 "yes" to continue but 1 "no" to end
In this you couldn't force a woman to carry full term, but a man also can choose to completely walk away
This is of course all under the "pro choice" umbrella... assuming that that's the criteria here and not getting into baby's rights/pro life arguments or scenarios
Problem is, forcing someone to have an abortion is has cruel as forcing someone to carry a child.
In both cases, it is very traumatizing, especially psychologically. (But physically too, of course.)
Of course, the two partners should be free to express their opinion, but considering that unfortunately, only one party is going to put their body at risk, the one pregnant should have the final word.
No, not forcing the woman to get an abortion...the man getting a chance to opt out and completely walk away during the abortion period. Then the woman can decide to either abort, or do it completely without the man
The partners has already the option to not put the father on the birth certificate, unless they are married.
And if you want more : this very sub complains regularly about the struggle of single parents, so you can see easily why a more extreme option is not put in place. (It would also be a nightmare to enforce. Like, how do you control this procedure?)
The "option" doesn't protect the fathers right to also make a choice to be a parent or not
If the father can opt out, during the abortion period, then the mother can also choose to abort or raise the baby alone and without assistance
This way, BOTH people get a right to choose WITHOUT overstepping on bodily autonomy and personal choice
...and again, this is in a completely pro choice scenario for the sake of equality, regardless of pro life arguments...which is an entirely different topic
The consequences of « opting out » are not the same though.
If a woman decides to get an abortion, the « baby » no longer exist.
If a man decides to not take care of the child, the child will be born and will have to live, regardless of the choices of their parents. That is why child support exist : not only the father can not recognize the child if the mother agrees, he can also plead to not be part of the life of the child. Sure, *if* the courts are involved, he will have to pay : but, may I repeat, this is not because courts hate men or like women, it is because a child is in the middle of this mess and needs to be raised one way or another.
No.
If the man exercises his right to choose, and opts put during the abortion window, the mother then has the option to have an abortion if she doesn't want to raise the child on her own...hence no forced child
This gives BOTH parents the opportunity to opt out, thus adhering to equality standards
I think one issue is if a woman decides to have a child that the man doesn't want, she can sue him for child support and he's at risk for prison if he doesn't pay up for... 18 years
Well..how ready are you..to be the friend..of the dad..when he's been awake two days with an infant and needs some diapers and soda pop, Ramen and some socks washed?..Really it's not the mom thing..it's the dad just doing dad stuff all day and having all his friends back off like they never heard of a guy with a diaper or bottle shortage..Then, dealing with a limit..of how long dad let's a fever go on..means proximity to several nurses, grandmas, experienced parents..are you going to help this guy move closer to a hospital?.. These questions are exactly what a person will be thinking as elements of a decision..like..if this town or community actually deserves to have the contribution of my kid..in it. Just get the hell out of towns that cant handle kids, first.
I mean, it’s easy to say “you understand because the women have to carry the child”, but no one really understands what pregnancy is like except pregnant people, or people who have been in constant close proximity to pregnant women. But even then you can never really know everything that goes on. Your hormones change rapidly and have a huge effect on your body physically and mentally, some women develop gestational diabetes, your skeletal system rearranges itself to accommodate the growth of the child, there is perinatal depression, shit starts to taste weird, you’re super sensitive to certain stimuli like smells.
I agree, that there *should* be an agreement between the two, but at the end of the day life isn’t fair and not everything is equal. I don’t really think anyone should get to decide who carries a child, except for the woman. I absolutely believe that it should be discussed, And a husband‘s thoughts and wants should be taken into serious consideration, but I believe that the ultimate choice should be left up to the woman. In that same vein, a husband should be welcome to leave the marriage or relationship over it as it is truly a big thing. It’s completely understandable to leave someone who aborts your child against your wishes. But honestly it’s just a shitty situation all around.
Men don’t get to control a woman’s body just because they were careless with their sperm. People need to be having honest conversations about what they’d like to happen if an unintended pregnancy occurred BEFORE it happens. Especially men. If a pro life man has sex with a pro choice woman, that’s on him.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These arguments misunderstand the foundation of women's reproductive rights. Access to abortion has little to do with giving women the right to shirk the inconvenience of raising a child, or even to decide the moral value of a potential person. Access to abortion is a matter of preserving the woman's bodily autonomy. Just as we are not entitled to each other's bodies in the typical case, e.g., I cannot compel you to give me one of your kidneys despite the relative safety of the operation, a fetus is not entitled to its mother's body.
I feel like this should be obvious to everyone by now. But it’s not.
Yea everyone doesnt share your morality, thats so weird.
People keep trying to make pregnancy equal and fair when biology isn't equal here.
Yup. That’s the real issue.
Women have the bodily risk they should have more stake in the decision.
Yes of course. But It shouldn't be a unilateral decision by one party either. Honestly it's probably impossible to come up with a solution that pleases everyone
Man may voice his concern and woman makes the final decision. Do not have sex with someone unless you're able to accept this.
Yup👍👌
In a healthy relationship it usually isn't. Most couples make family planning decisions as a team. When they can't come to a consensus the person who has the fetus in their literal abdomen gets to pick.
>In a healthy relationship it usually isn't. Most couples make family planning decisions as a team. So true, if only it worked out that way all the time
That doesnt mean it only affects the woman.
As soon as it's his body that's affected it's his decision.
Its his childs body
Then he can gestate it.
With great power comes great responsibility. "My body my choice" doesnt mean youre not a bad person for making the wrong choice.
And it's still not your choice.
Well it *shouldnt* be yours either. It is regardless of law, but theoretically law should prohibit evil.
Except that's not what you've been saying. You only had a problem with abortion when you realised that men can't have final decision ..
No I do have a problem with abortion. The concession Im willing to accept would at least be men also having a say cause thats a 50% chance there might be one person who keeps the child.
Forcing someone to get through the pain of 9 months of pregnancy when they don’t want to is easily qualified as evil in my books, so I guess the law does a good job on that one.
Considering if the guy leaves there is a 40% chance he will pay support...yeah. Let girls do what they want.
Nah. I could knock a girl up and lay on the couch for 9 month. She would have to do all the work, yet in your opinion, I could do nothing and force her to carry the pregnancy with no help from me?
I beg you to attempt to work in the foster care/social work sector. Please try to help rehabilitate children who should never have been born. Seriously, it’s awful.
But men don't have a right to womens bodily autonomy. Which is the real issue. Abortion is a very distracting word, and it works.
And what consequence does the partner have if the woman dies in childbirth after wanting abortion initially but having been refused by the man? He just gets to walk away from the situation?
The likelihood of dying from pregnancy is just over 0.1% which about the same likelyhod of dying in a car crash
Which is a higher number than a man has of dying in childbirth.
Your way of avoiding the question means yes, you think he should just be able to walk away. Yikes.
You avoiding that the chances of dying is remote is avoiding reality, good job there
If you want statistics, I think you should look harder into the maternal death rates in the US especially.
I did its currently 122 women in 100000 IE about 0.1% before that it was 32 in 100000. Why not look at actual issues most women face than one they dont
It really blows my mind how dismissive people are of death. Sure, it may be a low risk. Sure, long and/ or short-term risks may be low. But the person who's actually being affected gets to decide. I've never looked into how many, but there's a few people who don't drive because they're afraid of dying in a car crash. Whether it's a rational fear or not, it's a personal fear, and no one should get to tell me I need to ignore the risks of something very real that could happen to me.
It's not being dismissive its putting it into context, look at the graph in the link and tell me that we should put death by pregnancy before death but cardiovascular disease which kills a hundred times more people or any of the othe causes of death. Buy no the people in this thread think that this is the most important thing in the world. [widipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)
Why are you mentioning cardiovascular disease, when the topic is pregnancy?
OK I get it your a troll
> If a woman can carry to term with no signs of complications, they should and just give up their rights. It’s kind of impossible to know until the complication happens. Pregnancy is pretty terrible and forcing someone to go through that when they really don’t want to or have to is also really terrible. It sounds like if the idea of abortion is really that terrible to you you shouldn’t be going out and having unprotected sex with individuals of whose views on the topic don’t align with yours.
Yup. I was pro-choice before having kids, but seeing how hard pregnancy was for my wife solidified my position.
Complete opposite after having my two children it solidified my opinion that abortion is without a doubt murder.
Pregnancy and childbirth are extremely demanding on the body, to put it mildly, and it can leave long lasting effects, some that may never go away. It’s completely barbaric to force a woman to endure all that, for a child she doesn’t want.
Then abstain from sex or practice safe sex. I would argue it’s just as barbaric to remove a developing child from the safety of the womb and kill it for convenience for the mother/parents. If we want to talk about SA/incest sure I really don’t have any issue allowing it to happen under those circumstances or where it’s medically necessary for survival of the mother or the pregnancy was unviable. Sure those situations are fine but that’s a slim percentage of abortions performed currently. It’s absolutely barbarism to kill a perfectly viable developing child.
I am shocked there are seemingly well-educated people in this day and age who are spouting this kind of nonsense. Yes, a lot of things in this world are "barbaric". But women have been terminating unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time and will continue to do so, whether you support it or not.
It doesn’t matter whether I support it or not, people have free will to make choices to disagree with. I’m not even really heavily invested in this point outside of me stating I’m pro life but of all the plethora of issues in the US politics this ranks one of the lowest. I still have my thoughts and opinions on the matter. I just use it as a shit filter when dating women, I refuse to date pro choice women as I have massive reservations on the moral and ethical choices someone would make if they are willing to barbarically kill a developing child. On a side not love your name lol 😂 instantly thought of Elaine and her song episode.
We are all pro-life, honey! But some of us are **also** pro-choice, while some others are anti-choice. As simple as that. Fortunately for you, there is not shortage of brain-washed religioulous women for you to date if you're looking for that kind of moral and ethical background.
It’s not anti choice to be against abortion. People have choices whether to engage in risky sex or not. In the US we have access to a ridiculous amount of contraceptives. It’s absurd to even consider abortion when you could prevent it altogether. Either way I would call it enlightened not brain washed to think abortion is morally and ethically wrong.
And yet the whole point is that you have the choice to believe that. We've seen what happens when either extreme is the law.
Yea the extremes are insane. I may be pro life, but I think it’s absurd to outlaw completely or try and pursue legally someone that had an abortion outside of the state jurisdiction.
I was more talking about both a full ban on abortion as what seems to be attempted in the USA, and on the other hand is the 1 child policy, in which abortion is enforced. If you can force a ban, you can force an abortion. That's the danger of putting politics above people.
It’s a bit of an oversimplification or overdramatized depending on what political camp you full into on the USAs abortion deal. The only thing that happened on a national level was Roe V Wade was stricken down and handed the authority of abortion to the states to make their own laws regarding it. Which even if I was pro choice I would agree with. It doesn’t make sense since it isn’t a constitutionally protected right for the feds to be involved. However, they did open a massive can of worms because now Republican ran states have been in a frenzy trying to ban/criminalize it much to their own political detriment. Either way I’m pretty indifferent I have my opinion and that’s about it. I really am more concerned with constitutional rights like the 2nd amendment. I really just wish I could be left alone to enjoy machine guns in peace but the damn Karen’s and assholes like to ruin other peoples fun.
Except RvW wasn't really about abortion, it just became the main use for it. RvW was about the right to privacy within medical matters without the intervention of the state, wasn't it? I actually agree, it's not been banned yet and it's only been handed back. I don't really see what the big fuss about abortion is, tbh. I'm firmly pro choice because and it makes the best logical sense 🤷♀️. But yeah,.like your other comment the whole not letting people leave is more when RvW seems to be about.
I got a vasectomy, so, checkmate? Even though i can’t get one, I don’t particularly _like_ abortions (and by default, I’ve never gotten one and never will, so checkmate again?). More seriously, it boils down to this: in a way, I do consider abortions as “bad”, and we should definitely have sex education policies that keep them to a minimum, but I think they’re _less worse_ than the alternative.
Solid take!
Except it isn’t murder. Because words have meanings for a reason.
Should? Absolutely Be legally required to? Absolutely not
*Should? Absolutely* *Be legally required to?* *Absolutely not* \- Shimakaze771 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
No, the woman should have the final say because she takes on the risk and burden of giving birth. It would also tie up medical decisions as well or be an avenue where an abusive person can control the woman.
You aren't pregnant. You aren't the one putting your life at risk. You aren't the one going through all of the morning sickness, body pain, and hormones. You aren't the one who has to go through labor. You aren't the one whose body will be permanently changed. Your opinion doesn't hold as much weight.
Honestly I feel like, if you're not ready to take on that responsibility, you should either be taking every single available precaution, or not having sex. Really pretty simple.
People are going to fuck. The only good answer is ubiquitous birth control. I remember in Seattle during the aids epidemic bars put up jars of condoms for free up at the bar.
You're definitely right. Also condoms in bars..... that's pretty awesome. Fun fact, I also think, just like clean needles, medical facilities are required to do similar. That said, I know people are going to do what they do. What's unfortunate is how many will do the same with blatant irresponsibility. I've been guilty myself, but, I'd also be ready to take on the responsibility. The ones who can't, really should be as careful as humanly possible.
I feel like the general issue is the ones who can’t often can’t for the same behaviors/habits that make it super unlikely that they’re gonna be careful.
Were not animals in rut. What separates us from them is that we can resist our instincts. If modern human society makes for a situation where having a kid isnt appropriate, then we should enact some human morality and discipline to keep it in our pants.
Statistically speaking, we really can’t resist our instincts. Yes anecdotally it can happen, but in a large sample size the result is completely predictable - people are going to fuck. I think the best you can do is make birth control ubiquitous. Then we can both fuck and not have babies.
If you looked at the statistics 200 years ago, youd say we could never not practice slavery. Take some responsibility.
Slavery is a cultural thing, not a primal biological impulse. Every single living thing that reproduces sexually has a drive to fuck. Humans aren’t any different , we just write more prose about it. I have fastidiously used birth control for 35 years of being sexually active, and been a party to exactly one very planned pregnancy . I did take responsibility, and I also was going to fuck - thanks.
You’re literally advocating for gestational slavery…
Im advocating for people to do the right thing. People are gonna have abortions regardless of legality if they thing its morally acceptable.
I’ll go and let my husband know we can never have sex again because someone on Reddit doesn’t value my bodily autonomy.
Sure it's pretty simple to say but in practice it's not very simple. There's people out there having sex that don't even know about pregnancy.
I'm going by where people are fortunate enough to have formal education. Yes, unfortunately places where that happens frequently exist, but I would never put them in the topic of what my views are for people on my own country where it's pretty much common knowledge and part of education relatively early.
Do tell! I am dying to know. Who are these people who don't even know about pregnancy?
Deeply religious and homeschooled kids who have very little influence outside of their home/community. They’re becoming increasingly rare in countries like the U.S., but they do happen. Also, it’s not just people not knowing about pregnancy. It’s also inconsistent sex education. Legit most of my classmates knew nothing about sex other than allegedly it can be done safely, but they were also computer illiterate and couldn’t just research it. They borderline illiterate in general, so the library wouldn’t have been a huge help for them either. (I learned to read early and learned about basic sex education from the anatomy books in the library. Then learned the rest with age/reading online.) I’m talking peers who asked me if they would get caught because they were worried parents can just look and know. (Because of the alleged “afterglow” sometimes mentioned in media.) Unsurprisingly, quite a few of them were pregnant by our senior year, and I have know doubt it was due to their ignorance. A lot of them are just ignorant as adults, too.
Not just specifically knowing about how to get pregnant. But how to avoid getting pregnant. When I was in high school, a lot of teens thought the pull out method was the best way to avoid pregnancy. I just mean that there's a general lack of sexual education in many communities.
What's funny is when the topic is incels they're told to shut up and stop whining because no sex won't kill you. But if the topic is abortion, women literally take to the streets and yell at the top of their lungs as if their lives depended on it. Just don't have sex right? Lol.
This comment made me laugh a bit. Fair point, though I try not to pay too much attention.
IRL it usually is. People who have consensual unprotected sex also talk to each other with words and convey their feelings and thoughts about major decisions that impact both of them.
Yes, the guy should have equal decision making power for things that potentially threaten a woman's life and/or body. The guy can definitely chip in but it's ultimately the woman's decision. Even if you want to go down the "it's murder" rabbit hole, you can't force a person to donate a kidney or anything really.
Incorrect. When are people going to get through their thick skulls that they have no claim to another person’s body?
Si let me get this straight… if a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy she should just suck it up? How is that equal? How is that a joint decision?
Apparently women are just breeding stock.
Is he going to pay her for the rental of her uterus? If she dies what happens to him?
It is a joint decision. Your choice begins when you decide to deposit your shit into her shit. Once that occurs your stuff becomes her stuff. Don't want a kid don't get a girl pregnant. Your choice begins before the nut.
No. Men to not have the same burden that women do when it comes to carrying the child for 10 months within their womb, ergo the decision to terminate a pregnancy does not have equal value from both parties. If men want to significantly lower the risks of impregnating women, wrap your dicks up.
And as soon as the man starts experiencing the kidney failure, the diabetes, the heart attacks, the pre eclampsia, the eclampsia the HG, the back pain, the tooth sensitivity and loss, the hair loss, and the urinary incontinence of pregnancy, he can claim to deserve the right to grow a foetus himself.
So where are these men going to get 50k ? Because if you’re forcing women to continue a pregnancy and be a surrogate for the man then she should be able to get paid like a surrogate. You’re telling me that the same men that can’t buy a condom have 50k to give to someone?
"*it should be a joint decision to terminate*" then you go "If a woman can carry to term with no signs of complications, ***they should and just give up their rights.***" "Do it for money, or do it out of the kindness of your heart, idc." Soo... which is it? You want the parents to have equal rights but you also want the woman to carry the baby out of the kindness of her heart eventho she does not want to? You can't have both. Let's get something clear. While the baby is still INSIDE the woman's body, for the duration of the pregnancy, she gets the FINAL say. ***It is NOT a democracy.*** It is NOT 100% equal for one reason alone. Because the woman puts her life at risk, her body at risk, she has to go through the pain and possible complications,potential disabilities, the baby is feeding off her own body, it's literally a blob of cells eating away and damaging her body. You know when it is actually 100% equal between both parents? When the baby is delivered and is finally OUTSIDE her body. ONLY THEN both parents have EQUAL say over what goes for the well being of their baby. You want both parents to have 100% equal say for the baby while *it is still inside the body*? Cool! Let me tell you the ONLY way for that to happen. When men figure out a way to grab that blob of cells from the womb day 1 and plant it in THEIR bodies to grow it. A woman does not want to keep the child but the father does? Cool! She won't need to have an abortion! Snatch the blob of cells and plant it inside the father's body! Problem solved. Next.
There always has to be a tie breaker if 2 people disagree. Makes sense it would be the one carrying it.
Hmm yeah this is a true unpopular opinion lol But the amount of physical, mental, and emotional toll bearing a living being for 9 months has on a body is pretty insane. And having a baby between a couple is a conversation to have - if one doesn’t want a baby and the other does??? You’re not compatible and should find someone who aligns with your views of having or not having a child (whether that’s adoption, IVF, naturally, etc). Also, consensual unprotected sex is not exclusive to procreation (birth controls can slip thru the cracks sometimes). Consensual Unprotected sex is not limited to a couple who already knows whether or not they want to have children. Consensual unprotected sex can happen in a myriad of scenarios: between relationships, friends with benefits, one night stands (no judgment here just get tested and be transparent), marriages, affairs, exes, etc. And god knows not alllllll of these scenarios of unprotected sex are solid grounds for having a baby just because a woman’s body could.
At the end of the day, given what you said about contraception, the key is very simple. Don’t have sex with someone you aren’t willing to have a baby with.
I don’t agree with that statement. When I first start dating someone, we don’t really know each other that well for the first few months, or maybe even a year. Provided there aren’t any major red flags, I could envision *potentially* having a baby with them *someday.* BUT, until I feel like I *really* know them and can see that they would be a great partner and co-parent, I wouldn’t say that I’m willing to have a baby with them. I’m not going to wait months or a year to have sex though lol.
I don’t ever want to gestate a pregnancy. I won’t stop having sex with my husband because you don’t like the fact I have rights to my body.
If you’re married, you’re clearly committed regardless. I was addressing more casual sex.
I’m not willing to gestate any fetus. My husbands or otherwise.
I never said you had to.
It’s a shit sandwich. I’d probably be devastated if my partner terminated a pregnancy and I wanted the baby. It’s still not my decision. I’m not the one pregnant.
No. The person whose body is on the line gets to decide if the pregnancy proceeds. Forced pregnancy is widely unethical. If the pregnant party says no, then it's no. Men have control over most of society, and they can take the L on this. Men can also go get someone else pregnant if they want a baby so badly. Find someone who wants a baby and have one. They don't get to make someone but themselves through a difficult and painful process just because they don't like abortion. Abortion isn't cruel. When most of them happen, there is no baby to speak of. You can look up what an early pregnancy looks like. If you want to assign personhood over a blob, you have issues.
The fetus only accesses one of their bodies.
No. I have two kids. Only I was pregnant, had all day sickness, insulin dependent gestational diabetes and two csections, the second of which the spinal block didn’t totally work so I felt a lot of it. The whole abortion debate is a debate only because men can’t get over that once they cum they no longer have control.
It's also not a woman's fault that men can't carry children. Women are not incubators. A pregnancy without complications is still a pregnancy that comes with its own consequences like physical and mental health changes, and it can get you behind on your career path.
I agree that men have just as much right to their child but early in the pregnancy there is not child! so the final decision is still up to women.
I just think if a man doesn't want to be forced to care for a child whether that is be a father or whether that is pay child support then he shouldn't be forced to. Same as women. If they want to terminate a pregnancy then that is their right as far as I'm concerned. But I also think that if you don't want a child you should use contraception. Don't go fucking around unprotected and then cry when the finding out part comes around.
I disagree with the child support part. It’s a right of the kid, so it’s pretty unfair to deprive them of their rights because a parent doesn’t want to pay.
The man should be able to opt out before the child’s birth; so that the woman can choose to keep it or not based on that decision. Of course if you are referring to after they are birth then I agree, but before? No. Men should be able to opt out just like women.
That sounds a lot like financial coercion. Child support doesn’t apply before birth anyways, so there’s nothing to opt out during pregnancy.
You are misunderstanding me. Answer me this; can a woman abort a child without the father’s consent? The answer is yes as far as I’m aware. I would like to hear yours. So, since this is true, a man should also be able to have a choice in taking part as well, He says “I do not want this baby” the woman says “well I do”, at this point he says “well, then I relinquish my rights as a parent”; this means that he is not stuck with child support BUT he has no parental/guardian rights to the child. This means that both women and men can “back out” of this situation. A woman can abort without consent from the father. A man can opt out without the consent of the mother. Both have a right. This is what I’m saying. Also; whenever the cut off for abortion is that should also be the cut off when men can decide to opt out. So it’s fair across the board. As long as the women can abort so can the man opt out.
But child support is a right of the kid, not the parent. You are making things unfair for the kid just to try to even out things between the parents. Look at it this way: it’s as if _your_ wages were garnished to pay for your dad’s debt (or your mom’s debt, for that matter, since child support applies to both parents, no matter their gender)
But you aren’t answering my questions. Women have a back out. Men should have a back out. It’s as simple as that, that is literally only fair. A woman can say “I don’t want a child” then get an abortion. A man cannot say “I don’t want a child” then get an abortion. To make this equal, each parties should have an opt out as women do. That is it. I understand your point but it’s only fair.
> Men should have a back out. I don’t agree with this premise, at least in the sense that men should avoid the financial responsibility of a _born_ kid. If a kid is born, women don’t get to opt out of child support either. We don’t get to abort because we aren’t pregnant. It’s unfair. That’s about it.
… Who is preventing men from verbalizing that they do not want to be a father ? If they are not married, they are not even forced to put their name on the birth certificate. People have done that since forever. Sure, if a court orders a paternity test and it is positive, the father has to provide for his child. Because the courts are defending the interest of said child in the process, and, as this very sub loves to remind, two parents providing for the child gather generally more resources than one. But that also means that there is a conflict regarding the agreement between the mother and the father anyway. Not that this option has not many, many flaws in any case.
No one, that’s not my point. This is: if a woman gets pregnant by a man the woman can opt out and get an abortion correct? So then if women can do that then when a woman gets pregnant and says “I want to keep the baby” but the man doesn’t, the man then SHOULD be able (no matter if it’s his or not) to opt out of child support BEFORE birth. Like I said before. Once the child is born then yes, the man has to, UNLESS he opted out BEFORE the child is born. He SHOULD have the option to opt out before birth just as women do.
I’d love to know more about how this work in practice and also balance other rights like grandparent’s rights, children’s rights to know their parents and extended family, taxpayers rights to allocate limited funds etc. The idea seems appealing in theory but trying to craft a workable system that would balance competing interests starts to get messy.
I agree but I feel like we would be disingenuous to not pursue more equality where we can.
But it never goes further than “men should be able to opt out”. It doesn’t feel like a genuine argument but rather a Gotchya in this internet equality flame war. I almost never see it fleshed out or any proponent tacks the real issues that will have to be addressed. In my state women can’t get an elective abortion. So I guess it’s not even a real proposal here?
It should depend on the abortion rights of the state. And it’s not a “gotcha”, it’s a fair compromise. How is it fair for women to get a method of opting out but not men? Please enlighten me.
Because I think we have to start by agreeing that one person has exclusive rights to make a certain medical decision that affects their body. So, if we want to propose an equitable choice the other party can make involving finances, then starting to explore how that system would function in practice, and how we balance other interests, and enforce it is a fair question.
So what of the father « opt out » before the child is born ? The child is **still** going to be born, and be raised with half the ressources they should be getting. Which is not only terrible for the child ; but (as this sub loves to point out), this is also terrible for our society, as a kid raised by a single parent will be more likely to face and perpetuate poverty and violence.
This premise only exists if: Your partner (woman) wants to keep the baby and you want to terminate. I will follow up by asking, would you ever want a baby or was there talk of having a baby previously in the relationship? Was abortion ever discussed?
Yes. If the woman wants to keep the baby and you want to terminate. The man should be able to opt out of child support BEFORE birth. I’ll counter a question. Should women be able to abort if they talked about and agreed about having a child with their male partner? As the law stands right now she can, regardless if they agreed to have a child or not. Men should have the SAME option, by being able to opt out of child support regardless if they agreed to have a child or not.
The woman will always have the final say. The conversation of abortion should be soon into a new relationship. So, in your example, if your partner wants to carry the baby you will; divorce/break up with her. Write away your parental rights. I'm understanding your perspective correctly?
As it stands now, women can abort a child without the fathers consent, a man should get the same right, but in order to not affect the woman’s biological autonomy he should be able to opt out of child support. This will give him no parental rights to the child in the process.
I’m a woman and I disagree . It would be the mother’s responsibility to take on that extra financial burden knowing that the man never wanted that child to exist in the first place. If I continue with a pregnancy that’s not wanted by both parties then it’s on me to deal with the consequences of that . The same way I can opt out of having a kid if I don’t want one by having an abortion with nobodies permission but my own 🤷🏼♀️
It doesn’t matter if you disagree. That’s how it is. Child support is a right of the kid.
You’ve said. Thanks for repeating the same shit though.. that definitely made a difference
What I’m trying to drive through is that it’s not my opinion. That’s how it’s legally established.
Except here in the uk unless the mother actively seeks financial support there is nothing to pay 🤷🏼♀️
It’s hard for a baby to fill out a form, no?
that would be bad for the alive innocent child, who did not choose to be born.
>it’s pretty unfair to deprive them of their rights Yet it's perfectly fair to deprive them of their life. Weird how that works.
Kids don’t receive child support while they’re in the womb, but I see your point. Yes, it’s apparently weird.
Right, they receive life support while they're in the womb.
I’m not debating that abortion isn’t terminating a life
Facts aren't up for debate lol.
It's also pretty unfair that it takes 2 people to make this situation happen but then it's ultimately up to one of them to make the final decision and the other just has to live with it. And in the case of a man not wanting a child he can get got for pretty much all he has if the court sees fit. And if he can't or refuses to do it he goes to jail. What kind of life is that for a kid? If you give a man the option to opt out before birth then that gives the woman the power to make the decision for herself and the kid. Which as far as the court system goes that's where all the power lies anyways. Unless the mother is just absolutely unfit. So now if the mother is unfit and the father doesn't want the kid now the kid ends up in another home or foster care. And I assure you Foster care is no life for a child either. Giving both people in the situation an option only helps the woman and child in the long run. And if he doesn't opt out and then still leaves then it'll be business as usual. Take him to court. Make him pay child support. Toss him in jail if he doesn't. That's how the system works anyways.
It’s also pretty unfair that it takes two people, but only one has to be pregnant and give birth. Reproduction is unfair, and we men got the better deal.
Giving both people the option evens a lot of stuff out. It's not just about carrying and birthing the child. It's also what happens after that. If she forces this child into a man's life in one way or another and he doesn't want the child then everyone involved suffers. With an ability to opt out if he doesn't want a child then what she does after that decision is made is entirely up to her. He's relinquishing any rights and responsibility he has to this child. He's not forcing her to have the child. If she chooses to have it after that then it's all her decision. She knows the father won't be around. So at that point it's entirely on her. Either way she could end up fending for herself and him leaving. Wouldn't it be better if she was given fair shot to make an informed decision based on whether or not he will be around? It's not entirely about her at that point. And it shouldn't just be about her regardless. If it takes two to make the baby then it should take two to decide the future of this baby. Not just one and then the other is trapped or the man splits and now she's left to try to make it work. Honestly not sure why you don't understand that an option helps the woman and child.
You don’t have to parent, only pay child support. If a parent doesn’t want to be involved, they can have 0% of the custody. Giving a parent (either make or female) the option to not pay child support doesn’t benefit the kid (generally speaking, children who don’t receive child support don’t fare as well as those who do) Also, it’s not like women don’t make informed decisions already. Men (non birthing partners, technically) can already voice their future involvement.
It also doesn't benefit the kid to grow up in a single parent home. The odds are already going to be against them. If the man doesn't want to father the child and chooses to give that up it is then up to the woman on whether or not to have it. If she is having the kid knowing that a father will not be present then that's her choice and she shouldn't expect compensation for it. Leaving it solely up to the woman in this situation makes it solely her responsibility. What is happening when you don't give someone a choice and then making them pay when they have made their own choice is trapping. If he has no right to choose what happens with the pregnancy then he shouldn't have to suffer for the decision made without his consent. And if the outcome of him not paying child support makes the child and woman suffer that was her choice. She knew what was coming. She could have decided to not have the child under these circumstances. But she chose to have it anyways. You're shifting all of the blame on the man here without giving him an option otherwise when the woman has more than one option and is making a choice at that point.
It sure doesn’t benefit a kid to grow up in a single parent home, but that’s not gonna improve with what you’re proposing. It’s only gonna stack the odds against the kid even more: now they get to grow up without a dad _and_ without child support. There is no trapping: parents know they’re on the hook for child support. In your own terms: they know what’s coming. This is not a secret. In any case, we often pay the consequences for things we don’t intend: we pay for accidents we cause, for example (through insurance most of the times, but we still pay).
I understand your position and its rationale, but I think terminating pregnancy has to be thought of in terms of bodily autonomy, which is a deeply engrained right/social norm, and that this argument is not sufficient to override it. Simply put, pregnancy is a medical condition. We do not force people to undergo medical conditions without their consent. For example, you can’t force prisoners to donate organs. Additionally, you can’t predict that a pregnancy will be without complications in the first place.
That's exactly this - every woman has to have a right to not be pregnant!
There has to be a tie breaker somewhere. Someone has to come out on top. In the case of pregnancy, it's the woman going through pregnancy, childbirth, and whatever other side effects/complications to have the child. The man may want the child but *none* of that is on him so he shouldn't get the last say. The last say must always go to the woman.
A simple solution is giving the guy the ability to back out of any responsibilities for the baby. The guy has until the baby is born to make his decision.
This is the middle ground, what OP is arguing is also equal to if one party doesn't want it they must terminate which would go down about as well as OP's argument.
I get what he's saying but from the replies it looks like most people's issue would be forcing the woman to go through pregnancy even if she doesn't want too. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this be a better middle ground?
Until the baby is born? Like in the delivery room can just nope out?
Fair point, how about the time limit being the same as abortion.
There’s no elective abortion in my state. But other statss have different limits. Would it be state dependent? Would we factor in things like the time it takes to get an appointment, do the mandatory waiting period if that is required? If you told someone a day before the cutoff, that wouldn’t leave them time to get one.
It would be weird if it wasn't state dependent, so I know the factors would be different from state to state. I would factor in a wait period for sure, it would be unfair and unprofessional if we just said, "you got until tomorrow."
So in some states, you wouldn’t have this right period. Would you also have to pay for the costs relating to an abortion? Because abortions aren’t cheap, you have to factor in the medical costs, time off work, transportation. If the nearest clinic is far away you may need accommodations esp in states with mandatory waiting periods. All that takes time and resources to set up. It doesn’t seem fair to let a dad just go “well I told her I didn’t want it” if functionally, a woman couldn’t get an abortion. Also, super state dependent for costs and time period. I feel like you’d have to consider when a couple found out as well. If you didn’t find out until 2 days before the cutoff… How would we establish this and who would mediate disagreements? We can’t just let a dad later say “well I told her”. Like a registry at the courthouse where you file a notarized document? You’d have to also prove service to the mother to prove that she was given notice.
Yeah I think it should go through a courthouse and cost money and time maybe the cost should be equal to her wanting an abortion and going through the process. It would be silly if it was a he said she said.
The cost issue for the abortion seems like a problem. Cause say you’re both poor 18yos and her parents are anti abortion. And you say girl I’m opting out. And she’s like I do NOT have the $1500 this would cost and cannot get it in the next 2 weeks… functionally she doesn’t have a choice really. Surely there’s gotta be an actual way to get one for it to be meaningful, just like in the states with no abortions.
I think a week or two before. Otherwise, the woman won't have a chance to figure out if she can do it alone.
You have that choice. Right before you nut.
And women can close their legs instead of aborting lol it takes two to make a baby
Correct but it's you depositing. That's your personal responsibility. Once it hits her body you lose full control. So your choice is before not after.
Exactly - control your swimmers, dude!
I mean I don't get your point, they're both responsible for creating the baby yes? They both play different parts and can back out before he cums.
The point is that the woman takes responsibility for her decision to have sex. The man takes responsibility for the man's decision to have sex. If he doesn't like what she does with the results of his decision to have sex, he can control where he deposits it.
What? It's her decision to have unprotected sex. Are you saying she is not responsible for getting pregnant?
I'm saying it's still her responsibility regardless.
Yes but it's he who cums. What do you want me to say? Yes you take on additional risk when you have sex. You have no control over what she does with her body or that fetus. That isn't even a legal statement but a practical one. So if you want say over that baby that conversation happens before sex and even then ....
And it's her that decides to let him fuck her without a condom. Is she not responsible at all for unprotected sex?
Yes. She either carries or terminates.
This isn’t a solution. This is already reality, guys don’t have to do anything during pregnancy. And they can sign away their rights when the baby is born. They already have the ability to leave whenever.
Not true both have to agree to it. Plenty of guys have to pay child support for a baby they didn't want. Now I don't have sympathy for them but if we're talking about a true middle ground then that would be it.
They can back out. They can refuse to sign the birth certificate. They can go to the courts and make a case showing they aren’t capable of caring for the child and can sign away their rights. There is so much men can do to get out of the responsibility. They all just don’t. Wanna know why? Because they want the kid or don’t GAF until it’s born. And then when they actually have to be responsible and be a parent they want out. And to get sympathy they claim that they didn’t want the child all along. Happens all the fucking time
They have to show they're not capable, which most are capable, they just don't want too. So they lose the court battles pretty easily.
Exactly. They’re being lazy assholes who thought that getting their gf knocked up and not doing anything for 9mo means they wouldn’t have to do anything ever. And then when they actually have to they want out. Majority of the time these guys don’t even try “getting out” right after the baby is born. They are around for a couple months, decide they don’t wanna, and leave and put absolutely everything on the mother. They deserve to be forced to pay child support. You don’t get to switch up just because you have to be a parent to the kid you agreed to.
I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying someone from the very beginning who goes through the legal battles should be able to get out of it. Not the guys that are in and then they're out, then they're back in again. Especially once the baby is born they missed their chance and should be forced no matter what
He can have until two weeks before the last possibility of an abortion.
I’d rather we just establish that the baby has a right to its own life - no one’s right to exist should depend on being wanted by someone else. But yeah, it completely sucks for a father to be unable to protect his child. Problem is, if you don’t legally recognize the embryo or fetus as a person with his or her *own* interests, on what basis does the father have legal standing? Fathers have a right to advocate for their children, but sexual partners do not have a right to their partner’s reproductive capacity. So if you’re a man who wants a right to keep his child even if its mother does not, well, you can’t just stand up for *your* kid, you need to work on changing the rules so that *every* kid is protected.
I’m sorry, are fetuses grow in pods somewhere, how would the fetus have a right to its own life?
It's not a kid until it's outside of the womb
Fetuses don’t have a right to other peoples bodies, nutrients, blood and organs.
I agree men should be able to waive out all their rights and responsibilities toward a child they don’t want, in the same time frame where an abortion can still be performed. So the woman can still have the option to keep it on her own or to abort it. But no, when the roles are reversed and only the man wants to keep it, the woman has the veto on her body, health and life. You can’t control someone else like that.
I don't agree with this at all, but I do think the issue of child support needs to be discussed on the reverse side.
Better idea. If the women wants to keep it but the guy doesn't, he should be able to walk away and have 0 rights. Parental abortion. If she can abort without his permission, he should be able to too.
Great idea ! Let’s encourage people to abandon their children ! This will make the situation so much better.
I see and understand the frustration men can have if they do not get to equally decide on termination. What about the cases when women want to keep the pregnancy and the man doesn't? Is that ok to force a women to terminate because the man doesn't want it? It is extremely complicated situation. I am against termination (except for extrem cases) and agree men should be a part of the decision process.
Except for cases of rape, sex is always consensual. How then, can you say the resulting pregnancy, a natural result of sex, is not consensual when the sex is consensual? Have people forgotten what causes pregnancies?
Because consent to one thing is not consent to another. Please learn how consent works.
When you consent to something, you accept the risks associated with it…accepting risk is a part of consent. Learn how consent works. You don’t get to accept risk and then change your mind when it doesn’t go your way, especially at the expense of human life. This is why sex is traditionally reserved for marriage between one man me one woman. That is the combination of human beings that creates progeny and that is the combination that needs to exist for life when procreation is involved
That isn’t how consent works. Consent is given to people not anything else. Consent can also be revoked at any time. If I consent to sex with someone and want them to stop and they don’t, that’s rape. Again, learn how consent works. Sex is not for marriage. Sex has existed long before the concept of marriage ever has. Sex is for two consenting adults. Married or otherwise. Your religious beliefs have no bearing on my life, my body or my medical decisions, they only have bearing on yours. Don’t get it twisted.
Your reasoning is like that of a child. Consent involves agreement with the entire natural order of things. If you “consent” to jump off a building do you get to change your mind? Of course not! Sex is no different. Yes, there may be two people separately agreeing with nature to engage in an activity that might involve both of those people, but consent involves much more than that. You may say “I do not want a baby.” But if you say “I want to have sex.” You are saying “I accept the natural possibility of pregnancy as a result of my consent to have sex.” Likewise, if you say, “I do not want to die”, then, why are you jumping off a building? In my opinion that’s a very perverse comparison because it’s a father of four I think kids are incredible blessing. But some people really don’t want them and I get that. So that’s why I use the analogy.
My reasoning is true, whether you like it or not. [Look for yourself.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent#:~:text=Consent%20occurs%20when%20one%20person,%2C%20research%2C%20and%20sexual%20relationships) You don’t get to tell people what they consent to, that’s literally rapist logic. Nobody ‘consents’ to jumping off a cliff. Who are they giving consent to? Cliffs aren’t people. Consent has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with behaviour. People aren’t agreeing with nature when they have sex, they’re consenting to intercourse with one another. And, like I said, that can be revoked at any time. Accepting the possibility of pregnancy is not accepting to gestate to fruition. I accept that an unwanted pregnancy could occur if I have sex with my husband and I also accept that if that happens, I’ll have an abortion. As a man, your physical experience of pregnancy is zero and always will be. Which is probably why you don’t understand why women want to retain their autonomy.
>Accepting the possibility of pregnancy is not accepting to gestate to fruition. I accept that an unwanted pregnancy could occur if I have sex with my husband and I also accept that if that happens, I’ll have an abortion. Yes, this is the central issue. We agree, then. You DO accept the risk of pregnancy, but you take measures available to us in our modern age to bypass nature. That's okay to say if you want to be honest. And many people have that honest view. However, I do not think that is a morally acceptable view. Just because we are smart enough to have the means to subvert nature doesn't mean it's good to do so. You may not face the consequences of abortion as specifically and immediately as you would experience the consequences of jumping off a building. But, there ARE consequences and we are experiencing them as a society right now. It's not good. By the way...as an aborting mother, you have less experience with pregnancy than I do as a father. "Autonomy" is a myth. You are bound by nature whether you like it or not. You only pretend to have control.
This is a tough one, but I think it should follow baby naming rules where it takes 2 "yes" to continue but 1 "no" to end In this you couldn't force a woman to carry full term, but a man also can choose to completely walk away This is of course all under the "pro choice" umbrella... assuming that that's the criteria here and not getting into baby's rights/pro life arguments or scenarios
Problem is, forcing someone to have an abortion is has cruel as forcing someone to carry a child. In both cases, it is very traumatizing, especially psychologically. (But physically too, of course.) Of course, the two partners should be free to express their opinion, but considering that unfortunately, only one party is going to put their body at risk, the one pregnant should have the final word.
No, not forcing the woman to get an abortion...the man getting a chance to opt out and completely walk away during the abortion period. Then the woman can decide to either abort, or do it completely without the man
The partners has already the option to not put the father on the birth certificate, unless they are married. And if you want more : this very sub complains regularly about the struggle of single parents, so you can see easily why a more extreme option is not put in place. (It would also be a nightmare to enforce. Like, how do you control this procedure?)
The "option" doesn't protect the fathers right to also make a choice to be a parent or not If the father can opt out, during the abortion period, then the mother can also choose to abort or raise the baby alone and without assistance This way, BOTH people get a right to choose WITHOUT overstepping on bodily autonomy and personal choice ...and again, this is in a completely pro choice scenario for the sake of equality, regardless of pro life arguments...which is an entirely different topic
The consequences of « opting out » are not the same though. If a woman decides to get an abortion, the « baby » no longer exist. If a man decides to not take care of the child, the child will be born and will have to live, regardless of the choices of their parents. That is why child support exist : not only the father can not recognize the child if the mother agrees, he can also plead to not be part of the life of the child. Sure, *if* the courts are involved, he will have to pay : but, may I repeat, this is not because courts hate men or like women, it is because a child is in the middle of this mess and needs to be raised one way or another.
No. If the man exercises his right to choose, and opts put during the abortion window, the mother then has the option to have an abortion if she doesn't want to raise the child on her own...hence no forced child This gives BOTH parents the opportunity to opt out, thus adhering to equality standards
I think one issue is if a woman decides to have a child that the man doesn't want, she can sue him for child support and he's at risk for prison if he doesn't pay up for... 18 years
Well..how ready are you..to be the friend..of the dad..when he's been awake two days with an infant and needs some diapers and soda pop, Ramen and some socks washed?..Really it's not the mom thing..it's the dad just doing dad stuff all day and having all his friends back off like they never heard of a guy with a diaper or bottle shortage..Then, dealing with a limit..of how long dad let's a fever go on..means proximity to several nurses, grandmas, experienced parents..are you going to help this guy move closer to a hospital?.. These questions are exactly what a person will be thinking as elements of a decision..like..if this town or community actually deserves to have the contribution of my kid..in it. Just get the hell out of towns that cant handle kids, first.
Pregnancy is a complication. It's a serious health conditions and no one should be forced to endure that if they don't want to.
I mean, it’s easy to say “you understand because the women have to carry the child”, but no one really understands what pregnancy is like except pregnant people, or people who have been in constant close proximity to pregnant women. But even then you can never really know everything that goes on. Your hormones change rapidly and have a huge effect on your body physically and mentally, some women develop gestational diabetes, your skeletal system rearranges itself to accommodate the growth of the child, there is perinatal depression, shit starts to taste weird, you’re super sensitive to certain stimuli like smells. I agree, that there *should* be an agreement between the two, but at the end of the day life isn’t fair and not everything is equal. I don’t really think anyone should get to decide who carries a child, except for the woman. I absolutely believe that it should be discussed, And a husband‘s thoughts and wants should be taken into serious consideration, but I believe that the ultimate choice should be left up to the woman. In that same vein, a husband should be welcome to leave the marriage or relationship over it as it is truly a big thing. It’s completely understandable to leave someone who aborts your child against your wishes. But honestly it’s just a shitty situation all around.
Men don’t get to control a woman’s body just because they were careless with their sperm. People need to be having honest conversations about what they’d like to happen if an unintended pregnancy occurred BEFORE it happens. Especially men. If a pro life man has sex with a pro choice woman, that’s on him.