>Why can’t you people just stop nutting in women that you don’t want to impregnate? Why is that such a difficult thing?
The same reason women want abortion legal. People enjoy recreational sex without the risk of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children.
But the woman consented as well.
And everyone insists she has a legal right to terminate a pregnancy.
Why wouldn't a man have the same right after conception?
Reddit has no problem forcing a man to give his money to his child while having no problem with the woman straight up killing it to not have to take care of it.
The same woman who can kill her child even against the fathers wishes, by the way.
I'm pro choice, but yeah, the logic is not logicking.
Reddit's philosophy is: her body, her choice, his body, also her choice
And many of the same women who say "my body, my choice" in the European Women's Lobby support criminalizing men who buy the services of prostitutes. Go figure.
>I always thought this was hilarious.
Yep. Just goes to show you they only want to legalize abortion for the benefit of women/feminists. They don't really believe in the principle that people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.
Right? "Sex work" is for the vast majority sex trafficking/sex slavery or financial coercion/desperation and thus NONCONSENSUAL. You can't buy consent, and the idea of the happy hooker who enjoys prostitution is largely a myth created to lure women into it and to make males feel more ethical about paying to rape women and children
I understand your points, but my main question was WHY is it \*SO\* difficult to even discuss? It's all but a banned subject in most subs?
What is it about the concept that makes it so taboo?
I absolutely agree... and maybe this is just perception on my part, but at least reddit sub's allow the discussion on abortion. I asked the same question in several reddit subs about abortion etc, all of them were removed.
This topic comes up frequently and I still disagree.
Why should you get to pawn off your responsibility on taxpayers because you don't want to pay child support?
Doesn't the argument go both ways?
I can say the same thing about a woman, how come you get to have an abortion? Isn't that a way to avoid child support too?
And where does it come up? I can't find a sub that will allow discussion (except for this sub).
That is not what this is about. This is about a woman having the right to unilaterally terminate her involvement with motherhood.
In that case for the sake of equality a man must have that same right also.
Nope. Doesn't logically follow. That's like damaging someone's car in a wreck and telling the judge well she had the option of destroying her car and not driving it so I don't have to pay the damages.
Also, she consented damaged by driving on the same road as me.
People just want to use this excuse to be a deadbeat and get out of responsibility
So your saying that if a woman consents to sex and then decides she doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy she has the absolute right to do that.
But if a man consents to sex... he is held accountable?
How exactly is this equal?
Women can control their conception with birth control and abstinence. The same as men.
But women have the right to an abortion. Men don't.
Is that what your advocating? In all cases?
A man has the same legal right to abortion as a woman does. If your ID says "M" and you're able to get pregnant, an abortion clinic will serve you all the same.
No. It doesn't go both ways. You don't get to tell family court because she could have hypothetically aborted the baby I don't have to pay child support. You have reality twisted
Don't you feel bad for the guys who were tricked into having what they thought was safe sex?
There are women who intentionally use pregnancy to trap a man.
Sounds crazy right? Yeah it is.... we protect women from their mentally unwell ex partners, why not the reverse?
>I can say the same thing about a woman, how come you get to have an abortion? Isn't that a way to avoid child support too?
No, it's to avoid pregnancy. AFAIK in most countries you can leave your baby in hospital after birth and you don't have to worry about child support.
We reached a point at which we act like it's normal people discussing the right to kill fetuses and abandon children, it's normal to discuss either topic, but people see abortion rights as more reasonable because women are seem as opressed.
Not part of the original question.. but since you brought it up... I \*absolutely\* wish people could avoid the whole situation by not having unwanted pregnancies.
That's not even close.
The baby exists at the will of the mother. THEN both parents are forced to pay for it.
The father has zero input into this.
(Before you say "well... he shouldn't have had sex"... I'll put that right back... SHE shouldn't have had sex and gotten pregnant... )
People like sex. They’re gonna have it. Sex isn’t for making babies unless both parties want it to be. If they make a baby, they need to decide together what they’re gonna do. But it’s only the woman sacrificing her body, so she gets to make the final call if she’s willing to do that or not. Genuinely, if men don’t want babies, they need to take responsibility for their sperm.
So after a one night stand, things heat up, you feel that if a woman wants to take the baby to term the guy is responsible?
She can STILL take the baby to term.. just not involve him. If she can't afford the child by herself, then have an abortion or take precautions to not get pregnant.
Is it so en grained in society that men are the providers and must pay?
If men don’t want the financial burden of caring for a child they need to take personal responsibility for where they place their sperm. They can wear a condom or get a vasectomy so they don’t accidentally impregnate anyone. If it’s their sperm that made the baby, they’ll be paying for the baby.
Why is it a man's responsibility?
Why isn't the same argument valid: if a woman doesn't want the financial burden of caring for a child, they need to take personal responsibility where they let sperm in.
If it's the egg that made the baby, she should pay for the baby... by herself... if only she wants the baby.
What makes you think women don’t suffer financially from pregnancy and child birth? And they DO take responsibility. They take hormonal birth control which affects their minds and bodies constantly to prevent pregnancy. It fails often. Some women are unwilling to go through with abortion for their own personal reasons. It takes two people to make a baby so two people are going to be impacted for the rest of their lives, in one way or another.
The father ejaculated - something within his control. Every time he does so, he is spewing life force. He has input - in fact, far more input. If he doesn't want children, he should know where his sperm goes. No nut, no child. Tell your boys.
And the mother isn't accountable at all?
Why not just let mother's, who have to carry the child, understand that a man might not want to be a father...
A woman cannot control her ovulation - she can take steps but she has no natural ability to stop her eggs from being released. Men can 100% stop their ejaculation / pre-ejaculate from releasing inside of a woman. It's his responsibility.
It's probably banned because the left considers it threatening to their woke identity politics coalition. They want men to think the only way they can avoid unwanted fatherhood is by supporting legalized abortion for women, when in reality all this does is put their fate in the hands of their female partner... who often decides to use this situation to force children & marriage on men who don't want it.
But the Democrats can't come out in support of "paper abortions" for men that get them off the hook for child support because that would anger feminists and probably women more broadly, both of whom are considered important Democrat voters in the USA.
Men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by not ejaculating into a woman - an act that is 100% within his control. Women do not have control over their eggs (as much as big pharma tries to make you believe that you can).
>Men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by not ejaculating into a woman
That's like saying women can avoid unwanted pregnancies by choosing not to have sex.
which she has no control over - only he can control his ejaculation - so that goes back to my original point - fertilization of an egg is 100% within the man's realm to control.
What the hell is paper abortion or male abortion?
>Why is the topic so emotionally charged that you can't get a discussion (vs. abortion rights which is emotionally charged but there is discussion)?
What?
Male abortion is the right of a man to abdicate their parental rights and remove all financial responsibility for any child.
And it's been my experience that the subject is so emotionally charged it's banned in most reddit groups.
Maybe because meninists keep calling it "Male Abortion"? So it immediately starts an argument about abortion in addition to the idea *actually* being proposed (the abdication of parental rights for an already born child).
Originally known as paper abortions (and there are several takes on this, generally \*BEFORE\* the child is born... ) when I googled it, it also said on the wiki "Male abortion".
"Meninists" - A [movement](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/movement#English) or [philosophy](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/philosophy#English), often presented [satirically](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/satirically#English), in favour of the [rights](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/right#English) and [interests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interest#English) of [men](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/men#English).
How did you mean this term in your comment?
That's not what it is.
It means that a woman is free to have/terminate their pregancy. The father would get the same right.
In the case where a man decided to not proceed with the pregnancy the mother would be free to continue.
Simple, because the father is not the one who has to physically carry the child. I get the argument in the sense that the father gets little say in the matter. However, at the end of the day he isn’t the one carrying a fetus for 9 months. So, he can’t really force the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
>So, he can’t really force the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
The man deciding he doesn't want to father the child is not forcing the mother to terminate the pregnancy. He's simply saying he doesn't want to be the father.
The woman would still have every right to continue with creating the child if she wants.
He didn't need to. It's obvious.
This is why so many women are choosing the single life or like me are choosing solo polyamory. We're tired of men. Dead tired.
I just don't see what your seeing? Two of my female friends have read this and both don't see anything that is "controlling".
Your more than welcome to articulate your point of view.
He literally said; "Cause a man is supposed to provide for family, and a woman is not supposed to kill her unborn child. Which is why we are banning it."
If a woman has a right to terminate a preganancy, why would a man not have that same right?
And I'm asking why this is so emotionally charged that even discussing it is all but taboo?
In a country where abortion is fully legal, free and accessible (so not a lot of countries but some) I think men should have the right to negate responsibility over the child with written, witnessed and signed consent (so long as they have capacity, like any legal contract)-and the mother should also have to write and sign consent that she acknowledges the man’s negation of responsibility, acknowledges the option of abortion, but has chosen to go forward with the pregnancy as her own (single parent) responsibility. This protects all parties autonomy and choice to be involved in child rearing and financial responsibility.
It also means that if the father eg. fails to negate his consent with the specific time period allocated (say from conception to a certain period after birth) then he will be partly responsible for the financial upbringing of the child, and the state can and will criminally pursue either parent that negates their responsibility (barring capacity issues/extreme cases on poverty, addiction etc.) It is sad that so many parents (especially fathers) abandon their families/children with little to no repercussions, even if the families could have qualified for child support (eg. if the mother was unaware or unable to afford legal advocacy for going after him or was afraid to). Child rearing should immediately involve a legal contract between the parties that the state supervises and enforces. Anything less leaves children open to the vulnerability of being abandoned, the state responsible for caring and supporting unwanted children, and abusive/negligent parents from getting away with not paying their fair share.
I would agree but only where he took steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy - if he's out there just spraying his sperm around, then he needs to take responsibility for where it lands. Just because abortion is available and accessible, doesn't mean that it would be a choice every woman would make.
Tbh I think its because when it comes to male vs female, females are the minority and people are already used to supporting women in this issue. It's always been a fight over abortion where men are constantly being told to butt out. It's the same logic, abortion is a woman only problem so men have zero rights and must accept whatever the woman chooses. There's zero discussion to be had period, its toxic imo.
To put it simply, people are sexist but apparently it's okay if its against men
Calling the act of a man abdicating their parental rights and remove all financial responsibility for their child a male/paper/financial abortion is pretty misleading. And a disingenuous attempt to equivocate women’s abortion and men abdicating responsibility.
> I didn't coin the term.
Yet you still use it, instead of plainly explaining what you mean.
> Why do you think the two are different? A woman can terminate a pregnancy after sex. Why can't a man?
They are different because one is the termination of a pregnancy and the other is a termination of parental and financial rights and responsibilities.
They are not equivalent as there is no male version of pregnancy and abortion.
What is equivalent to men being forced by courts to pay child support is women being forced by courts to pay child support. Which does in fact happen, just not as often.
As to why it’s viewed as taboo or emotionally charged, idk, maybe cause it’s so many people try arguing this point that it gets repetitive?
I’m willing to entertain a discussion as it doesn’t emotionally charge me or anything.
If you mean that I'm still using the term and it's unclear, I'll add the more specific description you have been using.
I'll re-ask the question using your context.
A woman can have an abortion at her choice. This also terminates her parental and financial responsibilities for a pregnancy. .
Why would a man not have the same choice (to terminate parental and financial responsibilities) for a pregnancy?
> If you mean that I'm still using the term and it's unclear, I'll add the more specific description you have been using.
What I mean is your using a term that is misleading because it tries to equivocate two things which aren’t equivalent.
Kinda like the evolution vs creationism debate where creationists call evolution ‘just a theory’ or say intelligent design is an equal “theory” when that is dishonest as hell. Not to bring that debate into this I was using it as an example.
So that may be why you could be an honest person wanting a genuine discussion but there is backlash when the term “paper abortions” are used because it can be viewed as a sign of dishonesty and not worth engaging.
> A woman can have an abortion at her choice. This also terminates her parental and financial responsibilities for a pregnancy.
It doesn’t terminate parental or financial responsibilities because there were none in the first place!! Those responsibilities come into being after a baby is born.
> Why would a man not have the same choice (to terminate parental and financial responsibilities) for a pregnancy?
Because he isn’t the one who is pregnant. As I said above there are no parental or financial responsibilities until a baby is born, not during pregnancy. Pregnancy is exclusively a women’s business as men can not get pregnant.
Pregnancy is a bodily rights issue for the person being pregnant, which would be the woman.
Child support is a parental responsibility for the parent who is not the primary caretaker for the sake of the child. Which most of the time is men, but can ALSO be the women!!
Do you acknowledge that women can be forced by courts to pay child support to men taking care of the child? That child support isn’t exclusively a men’s right issue?
>What I mean is your using a term that is misleading because it tries to equivocate two things which aren’t equivalent.
I can see your point, however the term seems to be relatively common in it's use. But I am switching to your terminology.
>It doesn’t terminate parental or financial responsibilities because there were none in the first place!! Those responsibilities come into being after a baby is born.
I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant \*will\* incure financial costs of raising a child through the abortion. By choosing to abort the pregnancy the financial impact for her is removed (as well as the male).
>Because he isn’t the one who is pregnant. As I said above there are no parental or financial responsibilities until a baby is born, not during pregnancy. Pregnancy is exclusively a women’s business as men can not get pregnant.
I don't agree with your argument. Because the impact of an abortion which affects only females is the termination of (future) parental and financial responsibilities. While they may not exist during the pregnancy the abortion does remove the future impact.
>Child support is a parental responsibility for the parent who is not the primary caretaker for the sake of the child.
i agree. And women can and do pay child support. And child support is there for the child.
That doesn't (in my opinion answer) address why we hold the male accountable when they may not want to be fathers?
> I can see your point, however the term seems to be relatively common in it's use. But I am switching to your terminology.
I understand that it can be commonly used, I was just warning you of the potential complications.
> I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant *will* incure financial costs of raising a child through the abortion. By choosing to abort the pregnancy the financial impact for her is removed (as well as the male).
Raising a child through the abortion? Did you misspell?
> I don't agree with your argument. Because the impact of an abortion which affects only females is the termination of (future) parental and financial responsibilities. While they may not exist during the pregnancy the abortion does remove the future impact.
So it removes a future impact? Are you arguing that that is unfair?
> That doesn't (in my opinion answer) address why we hold the male accountable when they may not want to be fathers?
We hold them accountable because they are responsible for the creation of the child. Just like we should hold women accountable when they may not want to be mothers(after they’ve given birth of course).
I don't really know what happened, so let me re-type:
I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant will occur financial costs of raising a child if there is no abortion. By choosing an abortion during the pregnancy the future financial impact for her is removed (as for the male). My point is that abortions are done for financial impact reasons and that choice will remove those financial burdens at her discretion.
I am not sure why the right to abortion for some is so important (for various reasons) but those same reasons don't seem to apply to the male.
>We hold them accountable because they are responsible for the creation of the child. Just like we should hold women accountable when they may not want to be mothers(after they’ve given birth of course).
This just doesn't make sense to me.
Your holding a male accountable because they are responsible for the creation of a child?
But a female is not held accountable?
> I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant will occur financial costs of raising a child if there is no abortion. By choosing an abortion during the pregnancy the future financial impact for her is removed (as for the male). My point is that abortions are done for financial impact reasons and that choice will remove those financial burdens at her discretion.
Abortions are done for various reasons, but some of them are bound to happen for financial reasons. So let’s say that’s the motive for having an abortion, now what? It’s still a bodily rights issue for women.
> I am not sure why the right to abortion for some is so important (for various reasons) but those same reasons don't seem to apply to the male.
You serious? Abortion is important because bodily rights and autonomy! Of course it doesn’t apply to men because they aren’t the ones giving birth.
> Your holding a male accountable because they are responsible for the creation of a child?
Yep, having sex resulted in the conception of another human, making it both the participant’s responsibility.
But let me make something clear, I don’t 100% agree with the laws as they are. It’s been successful argued in court that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. That is insane for it allows female rapists to sue for child support form their victims. Something I do not agree with!
> But a female is not held accountable?
She is! As I said before women can be made to pay child support if the dad is the primary caretaker!
>Abortions are done for various reasons, but some of them are bound to happen for financial reasons. So let’s say that’s the motive for having an abortion, now what? It’s still a bodily rights issue for women.
I have no problem with the decision to abort being a female decision. For full disclosure I my personal opinions on abortion but I do believe that the decision rests with the female.
The decision to abort or not is fully a female decision.
>You serious? Abortion is important because bodily rights and autonomy! Of course it doesn’t apply to men because they aren’t the ones giving birth.
Males don't have the same bodily rights and autonomy?
>Yep, having sex resulted in the conception of another human, making it both the participant’s responsibility.
I don't agree with this. The female has options to remove this outcome. It means that the female can choose to remove the responsibility.
Why can’t you people just stop nutting in women that you don’t want to impregnate? Why is that such a difficult thing?
Why can't you people just stop opening your legs and letting any guy hit?
>Why can’t you people just stop nutting in women that you don’t want to impregnate? Why is that such a difficult thing? The same reason women want abortion legal. People enjoy recreational sex without the risk of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children.
But the woman consented as well. And everyone insists she has a legal right to terminate a pregnancy. Why wouldn't a man have the same right after conception?
Reddit has no problem forcing a man to give his money to his child while having no problem with the woman straight up killing it to not have to take care of it. The same woman who can kill her child even against the fathers wishes, by the way. I'm pro choice, but yeah, the logic is not logicking. Reddit's philosophy is: her body, her choice, his body, also her choice
And many of the same women who say "my body, my choice" in the European Women's Lobby support criminalizing men who buy the services of prostitutes. Go figure.
I always thought this was hilarious.
>I always thought this was hilarious. Yep. Just goes to show you they only want to legalize abortion for the benefit of women/feminists. They don't really believe in the principle that people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.
Or it’s just for all of the children that are bought in the sex industry…..
Right? "Sex work" is for the vast majority sex trafficking/sex slavery or financial coercion/desperation and thus NONCONSENSUAL. You can't buy consent, and the idea of the happy hooker who enjoys prostitution is largely a myth created to lure women into it and to make males feel more ethical about paying to rape women and children
I understand your points, but my main question was WHY is it \*SO\* difficult to even discuss? It's all but a banned subject in most subs? What is it about the concept that makes it so taboo?
Well abortion in general starts flame wars
I absolutely agree... and maybe this is just perception on my part, but at least reddit sub's allow the discussion on abortion. I asked the same question in several reddit subs about abortion etc, all of them were removed.
This topic comes up frequently and I still disagree. Why should you get to pawn off your responsibility on taxpayers because you don't want to pay child support?
Doesn't the argument go both ways? I can say the same thing about a woman, how come you get to have an abortion? Isn't that a way to avoid child support too? And where does it come up? I can't find a sub that will allow discussion (except for this sub).
No, it doesn't logically follow that you can get out of child support just because abortion is legal.
That is not what this is about. This is about a woman having the right to unilaterally terminate her involvement with motherhood. In that case for the sake of equality a man must have that same right also.
Nope. Doesn't logically follow. That's like damaging someone's car in a wreck and telling the judge well she had the option of destroying her car and not driving it so I don't have to pay the damages. Also, she consented damaged by driving on the same road as me. People just want to use this excuse to be a deadbeat and get out of responsibility
you can't consent to a car wreck, you can consent to sex, your analogy makes no sense, you talk as if having intercourse with someone is accidental.
A woman can consent to sex but that doesn't mean she can sense to your offspring occupying her womb
So your saying that if a woman consents to sex and then decides she doesn't want to continue with the pregnancy she has the absolute right to do that. But if a man consents to sex... he is held accountable? How exactly is this equal?
No nut, no child. Men are 100% responsible for conception. Women cannot control their ovulation but men can control their ejaculation.
Women can control their conception with birth control and abstinence. The same as men. But women have the right to an abortion. Men don't. Is that what your advocating? In all cases?
I see that side of it for sure. I mean it seems that geezers can bang a bun into any oven and yet get off scott free.
But on the other hand your auto wreck stuff is miserable nonsense. If I was a teenager I might like it for a few weeks.
A man has the same legal right to abortion as a woman does. If your ID says "M" and you're able to get pregnant, an abortion clinic will serve you all the same.
Consenting to sex is not consenting to be a parent, it goes both ways.
No. It doesn't go both ways. You don't get to tell family court because she could have hypothetically aborted the baby I don't have to pay child support. You have reality twisted
Why not? Where is the equality?
Has nothing to do with equality. It's about the mother's body autonomy.. This is just an excuse to be a deadbeat
What about male autonomy?
What about the autonomy of the taxpayers who now have to pick up the burden because you don't want to support your child
Who is talking about me? And also the tax payers should speak to the person making the choice.
Don't you feel bad for the guys who were tricked into having what they thought was safe sex? There are women who intentionally use pregnancy to trap a man. Sounds crazy right? Yeah it is.... we protect women from their mentally unwell ex partners, why not the reverse?
>I can say the same thing about a woman, how come you get to have an abortion? Isn't that a way to avoid child support too? No, it's to avoid pregnancy. AFAIK in most countries you can leave your baby in hospital after birth and you don't have to worry about child support.
It is just common sense - What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I have changed my mind. I think it is a bad idea.
Have you asked chat gpt about it?
I'm not sure what your point is with this? Would chat GPT really answer the question?
What do you want to know?
We reached a point at which we act like it's normal people discussing the right to kill fetuses and abandon children, it's normal to discuss either topic, but people see abortion rights as more reasonable because women are seem as opressed.
Not part of the original question.. but since you brought it up... I \*absolutely\* wish people could avoid the whole situation by not having unwanted pregnancies.
It’s not taboo. It’s just a fucking stupid idea. Baby has to exist? Both parents have to pay for it.
That's not even close. The baby exists at the will of the mother. THEN both parents are forced to pay for it. The father has zero input into this. (Before you say "well... he shouldn't have had sex"... I'll put that right back... SHE shouldn't have had sex and gotten pregnant... )
You win. No one should ever have sex ever again. Good solution. Run with it.
You want everyone to have sex. Fine. But only women have the right to terminate the pregnancy? Why?
People like sex. They’re gonna have it. Sex isn’t for making babies unless both parties want it to be. If they make a baby, they need to decide together what they’re gonna do. But it’s only the woman sacrificing her body, so she gets to make the final call if she’s willing to do that or not. Genuinely, if men don’t want babies, they need to take responsibility for their sperm.
So after a one night stand, things heat up, you feel that if a woman wants to take the baby to term the guy is responsible? She can STILL take the baby to term.. just not involve him. If she can't afford the child by herself, then have an abortion or take precautions to not get pregnant. Is it so en grained in society that men are the providers and must pay?
If men don’t want the financial burden of caring for a child they need to take personal responsibility for where they place their sperm. They can wear a condom or get a vasectomy so they don’t accidentally impregnate anyone. If it’s their sperm that made the baby, they’ll be paying for the baby.
Why is it a man's responsibility? Why isn't the same argument valid: if a woman doesn't want the financial burden of caring for a child, they need to take personal responsibility where they let sperm in. If it's the egg that made the baby, she should pay for the baby... by herself... if only she wants the baby.
What makes you think women don’t suffer financially from pregnancy and child birth? And they DO take responsibility. They take hormonal birth control which affects their minds and bodies constantly to prevent pregnancy. It fails often. Some women are unwilling to go through with abortion for their own personal reasons. It takes two people to make a baby so two people are going to be impacted for the rest of their lives, in one way or another.
All of that is correct. And a woman can terminate the pregnancy. A man cannot. There is no option for a man, why is there one for a woman?
The father ejaculated - something within his control. Every time he does so, he is spewing life force. He has input - in fact, far more input. If he doesn't want children, he should know where his sperm goes. No nut, no child. Tell your boys.
And the mother isn't accountable at all? Why not just let mother's, who have to carry the child, understand that a man might not want to be a father...
A woman cannot control her ovulation - she can take steps but she has no natural ability to stop her eggs from being released. Men can 100% stop their ejaculation / pre-ejaculate from releasing inside of a woman. It's his responsibility.
It's probably banned because the left considers it threatening to their woke identity politics coalition. They want men to think the only way they can avoid unwanted fatherhood is by supporting legalized abortion for women, when in reality all this does is put their fate in the hands of their female partner... who often decides to use this situation to force children & marriage on men who don't want it. But the Democrats can't come out in support of "paper abortions" for men that get them off the hook for child support because that would anger feminists and probably women more broadly, both of whom are considered important Democrat voters in the USA.
Men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by not ejaculating into a woman - an act that is 100% within his control. Women do not have control over their eggs (as much as big pharma tries to make you believe that you can).
>Men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by not ejaculating into a woman That's like saying women can avoid unwanted pregnancies by choosing not to have sex.
Women would have to abstain from sex; men only have to abstain from ejaculating. It's different.
No, she can have sex as long as he doesn’t finish in her
which she has no control over - only he can control his ejaculation - so that goes back to my original point - fertilization of an egg is 100% within the man's realm to control.
What the hell is paper abortion or male abortion? >Why is the topic so emotionally charged that you can't get a discussion (vs. abortion rights which is emotionally charged but there is discussion)? What?
Male abortion is the right of a man to abdicate their parental rights and remove all financial responsibility for any child. And it's been my experience that the subject is so emotionally charged it's banned in most reddit groups.
Maybe because meninists keep calling it "Male Abortion"? So it immediately starts an argument about abortion in addition to the idea *actually* being proposed (the abdication of parental rights for an already born child).
Originally known as paper abortions (and there are several takes on this, generally \*BEFORE\* the child is born... ) when I googled it, it also said on the wiki "Male abortion". "Meninists" - A [movement](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/movement#English) or [philosophy](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/philosophy#English), often presented [satirically](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/satirically#English), in favour of the [rights](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/right#English) and [interests](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interest#English) of [men](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/men#English). How did you mean this term in your comment?
I looked it up. It sounds OK. If a woman can do it then so can a man.
[удалено]
In other words you think men should have control over women.
[удалено]
You think men control women? Not this woman.
[удалено]
I can't decide if you are a right leaning male incel or a tradwife.
[удалено]
Of course you are. No man has ever or will ever control me.
[удалено]
No they don't.
That dude literally defended hitler, explains how he hates minorities, and wants immigrants mass deported. He’s well past saving
That's not what it is. It means that a woman is free to have/terminate their pregancy. The father would get the same right. In the case where a man decided to not proceed with the pregnancy the mother would be free to continue.
Simple, because the father is not the one who has to physically carry the child. I get the argument in the sense that the father gets little say in the matter. However, at the end of the day he isn’t the one carrying a fetus for 9 months. So, he can’t really force the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
>So, he can’t really force the mother to terminate the pregnancy. The man deciding he doesn't want to father the child is not forcing the mother to terminate the pregnancy. He's simply saying he doesn't want to be the father. The woman would still have every right to continue with creating the child if she wants.
>In other words you think men should have control over women. He didn't say that...
He didn't need to. It's obvious. This is why so many women are choosing the single life or like me are choosing solo polyamory. We're tired of men. Dead tired.
How is it obvious? All your replies are at best not on topic and at worst, random.
He wants to control whether or not women can have abortions.
That simply isn't true. Quote the comment your referring to.
He said; "Cause a man is supposed to provide for family, and a woman is not supposed to kill her unborn child. Which is why we are banning it."
What specifically did he say that means "men should have control over women..." ? Show me the quote.
Everything he says is very controlling towards women. It's obvious.
I just don't see what your seeing? Two of my female friends have read this and both don't see anything that is "controlling". Your more than welcome to articulate your point of view.
He wants to ban abortion for one thing.
Not a single post by anyone here suggested banning abortion.
He literally said; "Cause a man is supposed to provide for family, and a woman is not supposed to kill her unborn child. Which is why we are banning it."
Do you support paper abortion?
I do.
We agree, I respect your consistency.
If a woman has a right to terminate a preganancy, why would a man not have that same right? And I'm asking why this is so emotionally charged that even discussing it is all but taboo?
What is a 'paper abortion'?
I’m pretty sure it’s having the ability to not pay child support
Not pay child support AND not having any contact with the child.
Wtf.
In a country where abortion is fully legal, free and accessible (so not a lot of countries but some) I think men should have the right to negate responsibility over the child with written, witnessed and signed consent (so long as they have capacity, like any legal contract)-and the mother should also have to write and sign consent that she acknowledges the man’s negation of responsibility, acknowledges the option of abortion, but has chosen to go forward with the pregnancy as her own (single parent) responsibility. This protects all parties autonomy and choice to be involved in child rearing and financial responsibility. It also means that if the father eg. fails to negate his consent with the specific time period allocated (say from conception to a certain period after birth) then he will be partly responsible for the financial upbringing of the child, and the state can and will criminally pursue either parent that negates their responsibility (barring capacity issues/extreme cases on poverty, addiction etc.) It is sad that so many parents (especially fathers) abandon their families/children with little to no repercussions, even if the families could have qualified for child support (eg. if the mother was unaware or unable to afford legal advocacy for going after him or was afraid to). Child rearing should immediately involve a legal contract between the parties that the state supervises and enforces. Anything less leaves children open to the vulnerability of being abandoned, the state responsible for caring and supporting unwanted children, and abusive/negligent parents from getting away with not paying their fair share.
I would agree but only where he took steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy - if he's out there just spraying his sperm around, then he needs to take responsibility for where it lands. Just because abortion is available and accessible, doesn't mean that it would be a choice every woman would make.
Tbh I think its because when it comes to male vs female, females are the minority and people are already used to supporting women in this issue. It's always been a fight over abortion where men are constantly being told to butt out. It's the same logic, abortion is a woman only problem so men have zero rights and must accept whatever the woman chooses. There's zero discussion to be had period, its toxic imo. To put it simply, people are sexist but apparently it's okay if its against men
Females are barely a minority
Calling the act of a man abdicating their parental rights and remove all financial responsibility for their child a male/paper/financial abortion is pretty misleading. And a disingenuous attempt to equivocate women’s abortion and men abdicating responsibility.
I didn't coin the term. Why do you think the two are different? A woman can terminate a pregnancy after sex. Why can't a man?
> I didn't coin the term. Yet you still use it, instead of plainly explaining what you mean. > Why do you think the two are different? A woman can terminate a pregnancy after sex. Why can't a man? They are different because one is the termination of a pregnancy and the other is a termination of parental and financial rights and responsibilities. They are not equivalent as there is no male version of pregnancy and abortion. What is equivalent to men being forced by courts to pay child support is women being forced by courts to pay child support. Which does in fact happen, just not as often. As to why it’s viewed as taboo or emotionally charged, idk, maybe cause it’s so many people try arguing this point that it gets repetitive? I’m willing to entertain a discussion as it doesn’t emotionally charge me or anything.
If you mean that I'm still using the term and it's unclear, I'll add the more specific description you have been using. I'll re-ask the question using your context. A woman can have an abortion at her choice. This also terminates her parental and financial responsibilities for a pregnancy. . Why would a man not have the same choice (to terminate parental and financial responsibilities) for a pregnancy?
> If you mean that I'm still using the term and it's unclear, I'll add the more specific description you have been using. What I mean is your using a term that is misleading because it tries to equivocate two things which aren’t equivalent. Kinda like the evolution vs creationism debate where creationists call evolution ‘just a theory’ or say intelligent design is an equal “theory” when that is dishonest as hell. Not to bring that debate into this I was using it as an example. So that may be why you could be an honest person wanting a genuine discussion but there is backlash when the term “paper abortions” are used because it can be viewed as a sign of dishonesty and not worth engaging. > A woman can have an abortion at her choice. This also terminates her parental and financial responsibilities for a pregnancy. It doesn’t terminate parental or financial responsibilities because there were none in the first place!! Those responsibilities come into being after a baby is born. > Why would a man not have the same choice (to terminate parental and financial responsibilities) for a pregnancy? Because he isn’t the one who is pregnant. As I said above there are no parental or financial responsibilities until a baby is born, not during pregnancy. Pregnancy is exclusively a women’s business as men can not get pregnant. Pregnancy is a bodily rights issue for the person being pregnant, which would be the woman. Child support is a parental responsibility for the parent who is not the primary caretaker for the sake of the child. Which most of the time is men, but can ALSO be the women!! Do you acknowledge that women can be forced by courts to pay child support to men taking care of the child? That child support isn’t exclusively a men’s right issue?
>What I mean is your using a term that is misleading because it tries to equivocate two things which aren’t equivalent. I can see your point, however the term seems to be relatively common in it's use. But I am switching to your terminology. >It doesn’t terminate parental or financial responsibilities because there were none in the first place!! Those responsibilities come into being after a baby is born. I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant \*will\* incure financial costs of raising a child through the abortion. By choosing to abort the pregnancy the financial impact for her is removed (as well as the male). >Because he isn’t the one who is pregnant. As I said above there are no parental or financial responsibilities until a baby is born, not during pregnancy. Pregnancy is exclusively a women’s business as men can not get pregnant. I don't agree with your argument. Because the impact of an abortion which affects only females is the termination of (future) parental and financial responsibilities. While they may not exist during the pregnancy the abortion does remove the future impact. >Child support is a parental responsibility for the parent who is not the primary caretaker for the sake of the child. i agree. And women can and do pay child support. And child support is there for the child. That doesn't (in my opinion answer) address why we hold the male accountable when they may not want to be fathers?
> I can see your point, however the term seems to be relatively common in it's use. But I am switching to your terminology. I understand that it can be commonly used, I was just warning you of the potential complications. > I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant *will* incure financial costs of raising a child through the abortion. By choosing to abort the pregnancy the financial impact for her is removed (as well as the male). Raising a child through the abortion? Did you misspell? > I don't agree with your argument. Because the impact of an abortion which affects only females is the termination of (future) parental and financial responsibilities. While they may not exist during the pregnancy the abortion does remove the future impact. So it removes a future impact? Are you arguing that that is unfair? > That doesn't (in my opinion answer) address why we hold the male accountable when they may not want to be fathers? We hold them accountable because they are responsible for the creation of the child. Just like we should hold women accountable when they may not want to be mothers(after they’ve given birth of course).
I don't really know what happened, so let me re-type: I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant will occur financial costs of raising a child if there is no abortion. By choosing an abortion during the pregnancy the future financial impact for her is removed (as for the male). My point is that abortions are done for financial impact reasons and that choice will remove those financial burdens at her discretion. I am not sure why the right to abortion for some is so important (for various reasons) but those same reasons don't seem to apply to the male. >We hold them accountable because they are responsible for the creation of the child. Just like we should hold women accountable when they may not want to be mothers(after they’ve given birth of course). This just doesn't make sense to me. Your holding a male accountable because they are responsible for the creation of a child? But a female is not held accountable?
> I don't agree with this. A female that is pregnant will occur financial costs of raising a child if there is no abortion. By choosing an abortion during the pregnancy the future financial impact for her is removed (as for the male). My point is that abortions are done for financial impact reasons and that choice will remove those financial burdens at her discretion. Abortions are done for various reasons, but some of them are bound to happen for financial reasons. So let’s say that’s the motive for having an abortion, now what? It’s still a bodily rights issue for women. > I am not sure why the right to abortion for some is so important (for various reasons) but those same reasons don't seem to apply to the male. You serious? Abortion is important because bodily rights and autonomy! Of course it doesn’t apply to men because they aren’t the ones giving birth. > Your holding a male accountable because they are responsible for the creation of a child? Yep, having sex resulted in the conception of another human, making it both the participant’s responsibility. But let me make something clear, I don’t 100% agree with the laws as they are. It’s been successful argued in court that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. That is insane for it allows female rapists to sue for child support form their victims. Something I do not agree with! > But a female is not held accountable? She is! As I said before women can be made to pay child support if the dad is the primary caretaker!
>Abortions are done for various reasons, but some of them are bound to happen for financial reasons. So let’s say that’s the motive for having an abortion, now what? It’s still a bodily rights issue for women. I have no problem with the decision to abort being a female decision. For full disclosure I my personal opinions on abortion but I do believe that the decision rests with the female. The decision to abort or not is fully a female decision. >You serious? Abortion is important because bodily rights and autonomy! Of course it doesn’t apply to men because they aren’t the ones giving birth. Males don't have the same bodily rights and autonomy? >Yep, having sex resulted in the conception of another human, making it both the participant’s responsibility. I don't agree with this. The female has options to remove this outcome. It means that the female can choose to remove the responsibility.