Should Men Be Allowed "Legal Abortion"?

[Blackout]

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

Wouldnt that discourage poor people from having unresponsable sex and creating unwanted children?

 

[TooLazyToMakeUp1]

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.

Ok. But why is she having pre-martial sex when she knows the potential risk ?

It's pointless to keep talking about male behavior when you ultimately have control over your body

It's akin to guys complaining about unwanted children but insist on going raw

The responsibilities and burdens that you have to deal with personally are more consequential than blame. You're left holding the bag ultimately

Even if you get a little bullshyt monthly check, a child is going to hold you back as a single parent

That goes for everything

 

[the cac mamba]

I like it in theory, but there's a lot of considerations to be made.

exactly

i like this law, and goddamn right it would stop a lot of unwanted kids who dont get proper care because both sides never really wanted to be a parent in the first place. but at the same time, its not men who have to go thru the act of the actual abortion, the complications that can go with it, etc. not to mention its prolly kinda fukked up mentally

so i have to give women some kinda edge. if abortion was snapping your fingers = no baby, it would be a crime that this WASNT the law

 

[Barnett114]

What kind of man intentionally tries to have kids OoW?

Are you high?



nikkas raw dawg all day everyday

 

[Wild self]

Are you high?



nikkas raw dawg all day everyday

Yeah, but they don't intend on having kids. It's reckless, but they don't think about having kids over busting a nut.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

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.

So you really thing this law helps families in any way?

 

[Barnett114]

I have an idea.

If a man and woman have a child together... court should order them to get married. Somehow bringing a kid into the world isn't enough to make people stop and think who they fukk... maybe the prospect of a kid AND having to marry this random person would do it. And it would to some degree anyway provide a better environment for the child, which is the most important thing,.

That wouldn't work either, the last thing a child needs to see is a dysfunctional relationship

Maybe men are women using birth control and condoms would solve everything

 

[the cac mamba]

Yeah, but abortion is not birth control. It is a last resort. We need better sex education and free birth control nationwide.
.

that would be ideal, women should damn near get that shyt for free. men too, once they invent it

but it will never happen unless people start letting go of christian ignorance. and in this country we're about 200 years from that

 

[Barnett114]

Yeah, but they don't intend on having kids. It's reckless, but they don't think about having kids over busting a nut.

Are they not adults, do they not know how sex works

nikkas know laying up with a bytch will result is kids

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

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:

It would be more of a matter of the woman actually wanting the men at that point. Gay marriage is legal now.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

Wouldnt that discourage poor people from having unresponsable sex and creating unwanted children?

Does it now?

 

[At30wecashout]

So you really thing this law helps families in any way?

Thats not the point, as this law will most benefit people who aren't about to build a family anyway

Yes, there would be *some* benefit to the women as well.

 

[Still Benefited]

No the morning after pill isn't dangerous (to my knowledge). What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

If women don't want to go through either tough medical procedure,when she wakes up that morning after having raw sex she can ask that man would he want to have a baby if she happens to be pregnant...Then make a decision to go get that pill,my only point is its not only having the baby or abortion as options. I think women would make better decisions if faced with harsh realities,women need to be hit with the harsh realities early on so they not living in a fairy tale land about how great everything will turn out. This law would mostly just make nikkas keep it real with these women right off the bat,which many don't,and the paper work would force women to take that realness seriously,which many of them don't.

This law will bring the deadbeats true nature to the service,dead beats think they can beat the system now,and even moreso back in the day....I betchu deadbeats wouldnt pass up a chance to sign they rights away though,and from there women could make educated decisions accordingly,if she couldnt make em before she let this man who may have been lying to her btw,have raw sex....I think the law would just make women more careful.


They have laws to protect the elderly,they should have laws to protect men who have weaknesses?This law also would protect women from their emotional weaknesses,its a win win mostly.

 

[Lady.Libra.]

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. - The irony in this statement. Since you have lived it then perhaps you can understand why I assert that he should not go on to reproduce and potentially abandon at will again and again. There has to be consequences for each action.

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. - I disagree. Whether or not the woman was irresponsible when choosing who to procreate with & under what conditions; a child is still here that needs to raised...and she will be the one to do so in most instances.

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

Female example
"3 kids and no man to support? Alright, no more for you." - Again, in this scenario she is providing & caring for her child(ren). I don't see why she should be punished for doing the right thing.

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. - I understand but if folks are aware then perhaps they will make wiser choices?

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. - While it may not be a hard and fast solution, it is certainly an incentive for him to weigh his options/decisions/consequences.

 

[Raava]

Wouldnt that discourage poor people from having unresponsable sex and creating unwanted children?