This is about the equal say in termination. If a man doesn't want to be a father or financially hook he has much of a right as a woman. He doesn't want the kid, he shouldn't have to want it. If she wants to go ahead then it should leave the alleged father (women are promiscuous as much as men are) and the state off the hook. Simple. I guarantee unplanned pregnancies and reckless behavior from women will decrease. Men are reckless but understand the logic of rearing children and not yet being financially stable. Enough women get seen being thrown in the water without a lifeguard, later women will surely be more selective in their choice of men or take heed to men telling them they don't want a family.
Nope. Let's aim for both women and men to be more selective in who they fukk .
fukking Is where babies come from, end of story.
Your suggestion is more evolved than the usual on here in that you state that the government shouldn't be involved either if the woman just refuses to capitulate to the man's demands,
However it's not the child's fault. And why would the government agree that children should starve or be homeless because the bio mother and father can't agree?
As a taxpayer with my own kids, why should I pay more to support children that are a direct result of both the child's mother and fathers irresponsible actions?
I didn't get that nut with yall. You 2 can deal with it.
I'm not saying anybody has to be picky about who they fukk. Do whatever ya like.
But to act as if both people don't have a say and contribution in creating a baby is a lie.
You don't both have a necessarily equal say in whether any given pregnancy continues (and that goes both ways- there's men who wanted to keep their aborted or adopted pregnancies) but you both have an equal say in whether a pregnancy occurs to begin with.