Should Men Be Allowed "Legal Abortion"?

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

I can't see the type of man who wants a family being influenced by such nonsense as to think that he's not needed. That literally doesn't make sense in the context of wanting a family.

You act like the number of men who want to be "family men" it's already decreasing with each generation.

Okay then think about the next generation of fatherless children. So are they going to have the same desire when they have no model or when their society tells them that their children are their "burden" and you can easily pass off the "problem".

 

[Cynic]

Or they would turn into lesbos.

They'd probably use the government to enforce more taxes on single bachelors to encourage marriage.

And stocks on products/services that serve cats would skyrocket :hitunes:

 

[Blackout]

What if she doesn't believe in abortion. And having an abortion doesn't solve problems, maybe for men because they don't affect yall at all but women have to be present for the murder of her child. Even if you didn't want the child if you're not a completely emotionless person that shyt will bother you for the rest of your life. While the dude just moves on and loses no sleep.

Those type of crazy men still need to be addressed regardless of this law being passed or not.

 

[Beck.er.]

Sounds like a recipe for disaster especially in the Black community. Ya'll hate the feminist agenda but something like this would be a strong part of it. Many feminist don't think men need to be present to raise child. I have a friend who is on this tip. Men would think they won with this one but the future of the community would lose exponentially.

And Sweden is very feminist oriented compared to the US.

Americans like to criticize their policies as emasculating men, defeminizing women and destroying natural gender roles. But it can't go both ways. If they have a 'feminist agenda' then this is just one more policy within it not an exception to it.

The US and Sweden aren't apples to apples. So Black America and Sweden are like apples to trout at best. Americans in poverty are like apples to...maybe a wood door?

 

[At30wecashout]

What isn't fair & to whom it is unfair to is the innocent kids that did not ask to be here. Period.

So, In looking to find a solution/remedy - A solution that holds two adults accountable for their choices. One that is devoid of gender battles, witch-hunts, & all that ilk.
There are so many variables, so, strictly addressing the scenario in the OP - If the woman will be sole custodian/caregiver/mother and father then why does she need to abort (murder) or have tubal ligations (rendering her barren)?
What happens to the man? What are his repercussions? Or are you saying that she be held responsible for him too while he struts off with his sac hangin' & swangin'?

This is all that needs to be said. If the man didn't want the kids, how is he to be responsible if he wants nothing to do with them? I have a father who wasn't interested enough in sticking
around. It would have been much more endearing to hear that he died a war hero or something and didn't just leave us high-and-dry.

A woman bringing kids into the world without a father is subjecting them to "fatherlessness" they wouldn't have had if she decided not to carry them to term.
No, this is not an indictment on the woman, that isn't what I am saying. What I AM saying though is that if we are destroying men's ability to have children in response to opting out of
one or more that he has already had, it stands to reason that we would also remove women's reproductive abilities when they prove to be just as irresponsible.

Male Example
"Don't want to take care of your kids? Alright, no more for you."

Female example
"3 kids and no man to support? Alright, no more for you."

In both examples, they may meet someone in the future they actually want kids with. Now you have legislated taking their reproductive abilities away. Its a two-way street for sure, so I get
your assertion that there should be a "consequence" of sorts, but with the advent of such programs as W.I.C, which my mother was on at one point, the system pretty much mandated
there be no man in the picture for her to receive those benefits.

Making a man sterile is not a solution to him not wanting the child one woman produced for him. You have effectively taken away his rights, something you wouldn't advocate for women.
There is a middleground, and tampering with reproduction is not logical nor beneficial.

 

[CinnaSlim]

I agree,I think we got enough education once you are an adult,but they need to keep it more real about the harsh financial realities and drama....Which they don't really do in sex ed,they tell you how horrible std's are....They need to start showing pictures of horrible baby mothers and fathers throughout history,show women pictures of all the men who have multiple baby mamas that have never paid child support that's in the court system,show the young men their mug shots and paystubs and ask them "Do you want this to be your future"

Men should just have to pay a extra tax to make sure women can get birth control,condoms,morning after pills and whatever they need to be responsible.

The biggest problem with this law is the fact that many of the women you would want this law in place for?They wouldn't really know who the babys father is anyway

You would have nikkas signing paperwork to sign they rights away who aint even the daddy,Then what happens to the real father once the bavby is out,the courts gon tell em,Well sir you only had six months to sign those rights away

My school and my church's abstinence program told me it all. I am broke and deathly afraid of bringing a child into this world I can't afford. I agree tho that the financial realities and drama need to be included in sex ed. The truth of how much children are a strain of your life. But like I said media plays a part, 16 & pregnant reality stars, gold diggers, children being sexualized earlier and earlier, people treating their kids like pets and dolls. Damn shame.

They would probably provide a DNA test before signing the papers. Like that other thread that said a woman had to get the DNA proved daddy to sign the birth certificate before a certain period of time before they issue it.

 

[Wild self]

You act like the number of men who want to be "family men" it's already decreasing with each generation.

Okay then think about the next generation of fatherless children. So are they going to have the same desire when they have no model or when their society tells them that their children are their "burden" and you can easily pass off the "problem".

You not doing the black children a favor when you keep the father out of the household and run to the white man and it's courts to put him on child support, which goes to the baby mother selfish habits.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

I don't know, I would have a bit more faith. We all have varying perspectives for different reasons. My father was absent, so I don't need laws to tell me that running out on my kids
is not a good look. I know how I felt, and I saw how my mom felt. Laws don't deter folks who didn't give a fukk from pushing the line, and many men step up without even knowing
the full extent of their rights. They due it out of a sense of duty. I doubt that without an incentive, and I mean a real one...not just opting out of responsibility, many men won't
be ok abandoning their child suddenly.

Then again, the term "Cheaper to keep her" has some merit, so you might be right

Well I hope you're right but IDK.

 

[BezO]

I'd vote for some form of additional power for men in these situations. Simply opting out is not the answer though.

I do think any form of this would balance a woman's power vs resposibility. Havin' the power to say yay or nay on havin' the child SHOULD be accompanied by a heavier responsibility regardin' birth control. And I think this would be the effect of any such law. Women would simply step up their birth control game.

I also think few men above a certain age would consider forfeitin' rights & responsibilities. This would be a young man's thing for the most part.

This is lopsided....
The man that signs away parental rights, should also be consenting to a irreversible vasectomy at the same time.

Abortion = irreversible vasectomy? One off vs permenent? How are you gettin' to that?

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

Then he can't opt out via this law

So all the poor men will be forced to be baby's daddys while the rich dudes get the "benefit" of the law?

 

[At30wecashout]

Well I hope you're right but IDK.

Just look, despite how we focus on the negative, how many more families there are than single people struggling. If the latter was more prevalent, society would not work.

Society is literally upheld by families. It would work out. There would, however, have to be a culture to support this law so women who keep children and are on the lower economic scale

are left ass-out, cause kids are not cheap.

 

[Poitier]

So all the poor men will be forced to be baby's daddys while the rich dudes get the "benefit" of the law?

 

[Wild self]

You act like the number of men who want to be "family men" it's already decreasing with each generation.

Okay then think about the next generation of fatherless children. So are they going to have the same desire when they have no model or when their society tells them that their children are their "burden" and you can easily pass off the "problem".

A family man is overrated unless you rich or you over 35. Add the unfair laws that financially crush men, and marriage becomes a foreign thing.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

So you think "more responsible" men aren't knocking everyone up only because of the risk of pregnancy. Not inherent morals or character?

Honestly? Yes. Not every last one. But most yes.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

I can't take you seriously.