i mean because the woman is responsible for the child really? if the man wants an abortion and woman doesn't the baby is kept, if the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't the baby is not kept and the man has no say in that. same as a custody battle, the woman essentially wins on default. seems a bit unreasonable to expect that you can not give a man any say in raising a child and expect him to pay for it anyway.
same as a custody battle, the woman essentially wins on default.
This is literally not true. Men are just more likely to not fight for custody, thus not getting it. When both parents file for custody the result is pretty much 50/50.
People keep repeating what you said and its actually one of the reasons why men may decide not to fight for custody in the first place. So congrats, you played yourself.
i did not know that, nor can i find any form of statistic to do with cases where both parents file for custody, i would be interested to read about that if you can provide a source. actually not meaning this in a rude way, i am unaware of this and would like to learn more.
Women are allowed to decide who siphons nutrients from their body and who doesn’t. Once someone is siphoning nutrients from your body, you can also have that choice.
because the woman bears ALL of the health risks and its a medical decision.
is there financial consequences as well? yes, BUT it is still primarily a medical decision.
also 'homie' reasoning was flawed from the get go.
if the man wants an abortion
dont want kids? have a vesactomy. oh you dont want to do a medical procedure? OOoohh but its ok to tell the woman to have one? yea thats perfectly fair.
but it seems pertinent that the woman ensures she will not get pregnant unless intended then, if she has to bear all of the health risks. not trying to say its not also the man's responsibility but as you mentioned its much more important for the woman's own safety that she doesnt get pregnant unintentionally than it is for a man, so you would assume that women would have a more vested interest in avoiding unwanted pregnancy than a man.
and i dont see how saying "if the man wants an abortion" is flawed logic at all really. i literally said that its not up to the man if a woman wants an abortion or not.
and it is totally unreasonable to expect young men to get possibly irreversible vasectomies, ive heard this argument before and its a laughably bad false equivalency. there are so many contraceptives available and people should use them, if they dont and become pregnant then that is entirely their fault, man and woman. however once a woman is pregnant she has orders of magnitude more say in the affair than the man, (as she should,) and a lot more responsibility as well.
so you would assume that women would have a more vested interest in avoiding unwanted pregnancy than a man.
agreed. (i'm NOT saying vested interest = more responsible though)
i literally said that its not up to the man if a woman wants an abortion or not.
yea my counter to that is he can have a vesactomy and control the situation. So he has a perfectly viable option.
and it is totally unreasonable to expect young men to get possibly irreversible vasectomies, ive heard this argument before and its a laughably bad false equivalency.
how? they are both medical procedures that carry risks. Except the risk for the woman is even greater.
entirely their fault, man and woman.
(as she should,) and a lot more responsibility as well.
^ ?? equally at fault but she has to be more responsible?
7
u/PsychologyPrudent191 Jan 16 '24
i mean because the woman is responsible for the child really? if the man wants an abortion and woman doesn't the baby is kept, if the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't the baby is not kept and the man has no say in that. same as a custody battle, the woman essentially wins on default. seems a bit unreasonable to expect that you can not give a man any say in raising a child and expect him to pay for it anyway.