"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[United Territories and States]

to appease both sides, why not, for every abortion, it gets heavily taxed?

How about we don't pile on more taxes for unnecessary moralist justifications? And considering choice is already the law of the land, I'd hardly call that appeasing both sides. More like giving up significant ground to one of them.

There's always a chance to make money outta something ;^)

[Neutraligon]

Well, my sperm, my fetus. Yes, man should have also a say. There needs to be equality.

Not your fetus, not your body, not your right to dictate to a woman what medical decisions she makes. Women deciding what to do with her own body and making her own medical choices is equal to a man having the same rights.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not your fetus, not your body, not your right to dictate to a woman what medical decisions she makes. Women deciding what to do with her own body and making her own medical choices is equal to a man having the same rights.

It does not make sence. The fetus is not only her property, but also that of the man. Without my spern she could not have the fetus. So, a man should have a say.

The question is not whether or not you should have a say.

Is whether or not you're responsible enough to have a say and trustworthy enough to not fuck someone's life over just because you feel like it.

Your attitude here tells me all I need to know.

[The Black Forrest]

Not your fetus, not your body, not your right to dictate to a woman what medical decisions she makes. Women deciding what to do with her own body and making her own medical choices is equal to a man having the same rights.

It does not make sence. The fetus is not only her property, but also that of the man. Without my spern she could not have the fetus. So, a man should have a say.

Ok For the effort involved; your opinion has a weight factor of 1% in the matter.

[Frenequesta]

Not your fetus, not your body, not your right to dictate to a woman what medical decisions she makes. Women deciding what to do with her own body and making her own medical choices is equal to a man having the same rights.

It does not make sence. The fetus is not only her property, but also that of the man. Without my spern she could not have the fetus. So, a man should have a say.

People are property?

[The Black Forrest]

It does not make sence. The fetus is not only her property, but also that of the man. Without my spern she could not have the fetus. So, a man should have a say.

People are property?

A fetus isn't a person.

[Frenequesta]

People are property?

A fetus isn't a person.

Well, he might think so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The question is not whether or not you should have a say.

Is whether or not you're responsible enough to have a say and trustworthy enough to not fuck someone's life over just because you feel like it.

Your attitude here tells me all I need to know.

The same goes for the female as well. This is not a one side issue.

You're the one asking to have a say into what a woman does.

The question here is whether or not you are responsible enough and trustworthy enough to have a say. Are you?

Because, see, this is what you're essentially asking when you say you support this law, or ask us to consider whether or not this law has any merit. You're asking us to consider whether or not we should give you, and people like you, a default position of trust and responsibility.

I would not trust you nor think you are responsibly enough to handle my decisions regarding... anything, really. Why should the government trust you in regards of the decisions a woman should do in regards of a pregnancy?

[The Black Forrest]

A fetus isn't a person.

Well, he might think so.

He who?

[Frenequesta]

People are property?

A fetus is not a person.

Alright, just checking. Carry on.

Well, he might think so.

He who?

See above.

[Militant Costco]

The same goes for the female as well. This is not a one side issue.

You're the one asking to have a say into what a woman does.

The question here is whether or not you are responsible enough and trustworthy enough to have a say. Are you?

If it was consensual sex gone wrong I don't see why the man couldn't have a say in it. Although obviously this should be different in cases of rape or incest or more unpleasant incidents.

However shouldn't the man also have a say in if the women should get an abortion? Like what if the mother is completely deluded and the father doesn't want to have the baby, shouldn't the man have the ability to say "yes, have an abortion"? I mean after all he's going to be taking of that thing too.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're the one asking to have a say into what a woman does.

Well in that case she should not have become pregnant in first place. If the unindirect pact of sexual intercourse was not have a baby, but only sex than she should had been carefully as well.

See, this is what you're essentially asking when you say you support this law, or ask us to consider whether or not this law has any merit. You're asking us to consider whether or not we should give you, and people like you, a default position of trust and responsibility.

I would not trust you nor think you are responsibly enough to handle my decisions regarding... anything, really. Why should the government trust you in regards of the decisions a woman should do in regards of a pregnancy?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're the one asking to have a say into what a woman does.

The question here is whether or not you are responsible enough and trustworthy enough to have a say. Are you?

If it was consensual sex gone wrong I don't see why the man couldn't have a say in it. Although obviously this should be different in cases of rape or incest or more unpleasant incidents.

However shouldn't the man also have a say in if the women should get an abortion? Like what if the mother is completely deluded and the father doesn't want to have the baby, shouldn't the man have the ability to say "yes, have an abortion"? I mean after all he's going to be taking of that thing too.

See, the thing is, this is something you talk with your partner about and you make arrangements in regards of these decisions. Again, it all hinges upon trust. A couple who's happy, have consensual sex, and the woman gets pregnant, can talk about this and still live happily with each other as a couple. This law isn't solving anything good communication already doesn't. If you're out fucking and you "accidentally" leave a woman pregnant on a one-night stand, you're not exactly looking to fuck to breed, are you?

All this law is doing is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse on a woman, or a rapist, or an incestual relationship have a disproportionate amount of power than it already has.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If it was consensual sex gone wrong I don't see why the man couldn't have a say in it. Although obviously this should be different in cases of rape or incest or more unpleasant incidents.

However shouldn't the man also have a say in if the women should get an abortion? Like what if the mother is completely deluded and the father doesn't want to have the baby, shouldn't the man have the ability to say "yes, have an abortion"? I mean after all he's going to be taking of that thing too.

This. The system is fucking up man. After the birth, they expect than man to pay allimentation, yet they do not want that a man have a say about the fetus.

No, the thing is that, as a man, I don't see why we should have the default state of trust and responsibility granted to us just because we fucked a baby into a woman.

If you're not responsible nor trustworthy, then women are in the right of not letting you have a voice in any decisions impacting their personal life up to, and including, getting an abortion or not. You're asking to be trusted with the responsibility of managing a human life, the mother isn't. The onus here is not on her to rely upon her gut feeling to trust you, it is on you to prove you're reliable and responsible.

[Durghkhan]

SOON ABORTION WILL SURRENDER TO DURGHKHAN!!!

[Frenequesta]

SOON ABORTION WILL SURRENDER TO DURGHKHAN!!!

This is an OOC thread. International Incidents is that-a-way.

[Militant Costco]

If it was consensual sex gone wrong I don't see why the man couldn't have a say in it. Although obviously this should be different in cases of rape or incest or more unpleasant incidents.

However shouldn't the man also have a say in if the women should get an abortion? Like what if the mother is completely deluded and the father doesn't want to have the baby, shouldn't the man have the ability to say "yes, have an abortion"? I mean after all he's going to be taking of that thing too.

See, the thing is, this is something you talk with your partner about and you make arrangements in regards of these decisions. Again, it all hinges upon trust. A couple who's happy, have consensual sex, and the woman gets pregnant, can talk about this and still live happily with each other as a couple. This law isn't solving anything good communication already doesn't.

All this law is doing is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse on a woman, or a rapist, or an incestual relationship have a disproportionate amount of power than it already has.

I'd love to have as much hope as you have in humanity, but unfortunately real-life doesn't work that way. Divorces are record high all around the world, the next-generation can't even get married, the world's largest country has the worlds largest gender imbalance and some countries will simply CTE with their current birthrate.

People are irresponsible. Poor people will get 5+ kids even if they can't afford one in the hopes that one becomes rich and provides for the family (this almost never works). Men in these households will often just leave because they don't want to take care of them. As much as I hate laws getting into the personal lives of citizens, if we were to implement such a law as this, the men should have a say in yes to abortion.

"All this law is doing is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse on a woman, or a rapist, or an incestual relationship have a disproportionate amount of power than it already has."
I'm quite sure a law like this would have some exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

[Militant Costco]

If it was consensual sex gone wrong I don't see why the man couldn't have a say in it. Although obviously this should be different in cases of rape or incest or more unpleasant incidents.

However shouldn't the man also have a say in if the women should get an abortion? Like what if the mother is completely deluded and the father doesn't want to have the baby, shouldn't the man have the ability to say "yes, have an abortion"? I mean after all he's going to be taking of that thing too.

This. The system is fucking up man. After the birth, they expect than man to pay allimentation, yet they do not want that a man have a say about the fetus.

This is what feminists never mention. Also the fact that men usually will lose custody of their kids over the women and that paternity pay is taken more lightly than maternity pay.

[Talsk Vantorva]

Don't practice Safe Sex, pay the consequences.


Abortion should only be legal in the event of rape or if the mothers life is in danger.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd love to have as much hope as you have in humanity, but unfortunately real-life doesn't work that way. Divorces are record high all around the world, the next-generation can't even get married, the world's largest country has the worlds largest gender imbalance and some countries will simply CTE with their current birthrate.

People are irresponsible. Poor people will get 5+ kids even if they can't afford one in the hopes that one becomes rich and provides for the family (this almost never works). Men in these households will often just leave because they don't want to take care of them. As much as I hate laws getting into the personal lives of citizens, if we were to implement such a law as this, the men should have a say in yes to abortion.

"All this law is doing is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse on a woman, or a rapist, or an incestual relationship have a disproportionate amount of power than it already has."
I'm quite sure a law like this would have some exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

You think I have hope in humanity? You must confuse me for someone else. I don't. This is why legalizing putting men in a default position of trust and responsibility over a woman's life is a bad idea. Exactly because I have no hope, nor do I trust, anyone. We men are not some wise beings who can visualize the future, so unless you can make us all prophets as men, we don't belong in a position of trust unless we prove we're capable of handling said trust. That's the fundamental problem I see under a law that requires for women to talk with the men who left them pregnant about having an abortion and gaining their consent, that as much as you think many people wouldn't fuck women over, many men would simply do it out of spite or whatever other petty reason.

I'm not the one here having hope in men being responsible, you are. This is why I don't think men should have a say in an abortion. Also, it is nice that you ignore the part where I say that this law is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse. Also, if divorces are at an all-time high, and the next generation can't get married, it is not an inherent fault of the laws that this is a direct result of. Many people also get married every day and many couples celebrate their 20th, 50th anniversary together. For every case of doom and gloom, there's plenty of cases where the opposite is true.

[Militant Costco]

I'd love to have as much hope as you have in humanity, but unfortunately real-life doesn't work that way. Divorces are record high all around the world, the next-generation can't even get married, the world's largest country has the worlds largest gender imbalance and some countries will simply CTE with their current birthrate.

People are irresponsible. Poor people will get 5+ kids even if they can't afford one in the hopes that one becomes rich and provides for the family (this almost never works). Men in these households will often just leave because they don't want to take care of them. As much as I hate laws getting into the personal lives of citizens, if we were to implement such a law as this, the men should have a say in yes to abortion.

"All this law is doing is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse on a woman, or a rapist, or an incestual relationship have a disproportionate amount of power than it already has."
I'm quite sure a law like this would have some exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

You think I have hope in humanity? You must confuse me for someone else. I don't. This is why legalizing putting men in a default position of trust and responsibility over a woman's life is a bad idea. Exactly because I have no hope, nor do I trust, anyone. We men are not some wise beings who can visualize the future, so unless you can make us all prophets as men, we don't belong in a position of trust unless we prove we're capable of handling said trust. That's the fundamental problem I see under a law that requires for women to talk with the men who left them pregnant about having an abortion and gaining their consent, that as much as you think many people wouldn't fuck women over, many men would simply do it out of spite or whatever other petty reason.

I'm not the one here having hope in men being responsible, you are. This is why I don't think men should have a say in an abortion. Also, it is nice that you ignore the part where I say that this law is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse. Also, if divorces are at an all-time high, and the next generation can't get married, it is not an inherent fault of the laws that this is a direct result of. Many people also get married every day and many couples celebrate their 20th, 50th anniversary together. For every case of doom and gloom, there's plenty of cases where the opposite is true.

So you don't trust men with the responsibility of a women's life but you'll trust a women with a man's life? Makes sense *nod*

What even is your alternative suggestion? Do you think they can just talk this out? Because as you have stated before, you have no hope in humanity and people making the right choices.

I didn't ignore the abuse thing, I put that under the "exception" under my first statement. Also I never said I supported this idea, I'm against something this personal and I never blamed this or any laws for creating the mess we have in birth rates, rather I'm stating that logically if the women has the right to fuck up a man's life because it's her own body, then why should the men not be granted this privilege?

Many people get married every day, but the rates are still less than what they should be. Behind every shining sun is a giant nuclear reactor waiting to explode.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You think I have hope in humanity? You must confuse me for someone else. I don't. This is why legalizing putting men in a default position of trust and responsibility over a woman's life is a bad idea. Exactly because I have no hope, nor do I trust, anyone. We men are not some wise beings who can visualize the future, so unless you can make us all prophets as men, we don't belong in a position of trust unless we prove we're capable of handling said trust. That's the fundamental problem I see under a law that requires for women to talk with the men who left them pregnant about having an abortion and gaining their consent, that as much as you think many people wouldn't fuck women over, many men would simply do it out of spite or whatever other petty reason.

I'm not the one here having hope in men being responsible, you are. This is why I don't think men should have a say in an abortion. Also, it is nice that you ignore the part where I say that this law is providing abusers a further means to entrench their abuse. Also, if divorces are at an all-time high, and the next generation can't get married, it is not an inherent fault of the laws that this is a direct result of. Many people also get married every day and many couples celebrate their 20th, 50th anniversary together. For every case of doom and gloom, there's plenty of cases where the opposite is true.

So you don't trust men with the responsibility of a women's life but you'll trust a women with a man's life? Makes sense *nod*

What even is your alternative suggestion? Do you think they can just talk this out? Because as you have stated before, you have no hope in humanity and people making the right choices.

I didn't ignore the abuse thing, I put that under the "exception" under my first statement. Also I never said I supported this idea, I'm against something this personal and I never blamed this or any laws for creating the mess we have in birth rates, rather I'm stating that logically if the women has the right to fuck up a man's life because it's her own body, then why should the men not be granted this privilege?

Many people get married every day, but the rates are still less than what they should be. Behind every shining sun is a giant nuclear reactor waiting to explode.

I don't trust a woman with a man's life either. There's plenty of women who'd fuck a guy over as well out of spite or other petty reasons. Just because we're talking about this particular topic, and I don't see how putting men in a default position of trust and responsibility over a woman's life is a good idea, doesn't mean I agree with the opposite statement.

My alternative suggestion is to not make men pay alimony for the baby under certain circumstances. Not all circumstances are equal, and some of them do require for alimony, but not all of them require so, so learning about the issue is important as well and see which reasons are ridiculous under which men can be hit with alimony.

"if the women has the right to fuck up a man's life because it's her own body, then why should the men not be granted this privilege?", so under this logic, do you really, absolutely believe that tit-for-tat or vindictiveness is the way to resolve things? Because this is what you're implying, that instead of looking at a woman abusing her power and going "man, if there was a way to stop this..." you'd rather go "man she's such a bitch! But I'll show her a lesson! She fucked me over so I'll fuck her over too! It's my right and privilege!"

[Neutraligon]

This. The system is fucking up man. After the birth, they expect than man to pay allimentation, yet they do not want that a man have a say about the fetus.

This is what feminists never mention. Also the fact that men usually will lose custody of their kids over the women and that paternity pay is taken more lightly than maternity pay.

It has been something repeatedly commented on this thread, and something many of the feminists in this thread say they support men being able to "financially abort."

[Minzerland II]

I'm struggling to find myself disliking the gist of this legislation, tbh. The father of the would-be baby's permission, that is. However, my position at the moment is something akin to below:

He should be allowed to weigh in. Perhaps required - no right to block the decision, but might as well let him have a say.
And then let men opt out of parenthood, and all is rosy.

I don't believe the bloke should have a say in whether or not she has an abortion, but I do think he should have the ability to opt out without legal consequences.

[Militant Costco]

So you don't trust men with the responsibility of a women's life but you'll trust a women with a man's life? Makes sense *nod*

What even is your alternative suggestion? Do you think they can just talk this out? Because as you have stated before, you have no hope in humanity and people making the right choices.

I didn't ignore the abuse thing, I put that under the "exception" under my first statement. Also I never said I supported this idea, I'm against something this personal and I never blamed this or any laws for creating the mess we have in birth rates, rather I'm stating that logically if the women has the right to fuck up a man's life because it's her own body, then why should the men not be granted this privilege?

Many people get married every day, but the rates are still less than what they should be. Behind every shining sun is a giant nuclear reactor waiting to explode.

I don't trust a woman with a man's life either. There's plenty of women who'd fuck a guy over as well out of spite or other petty reasons. Just because we're talking about this particular topic, and I don't see how putting men in a default position of trust and responsibility over a woman's life is a good idea, doesn't mean I agree with the opposite statement.

My alternative suggestion is to not make men pay alimony for the baby under certain circumstances. Not all circumstances are equal, and some of them do require for alimony, but not all of them require so, so learning about the issue is important as well and see which reasons are ridiculous under which men can be hit with alimony.

"if the women has the right to fuck up a man's life because it's her own body, then why should the men not be granted this privilege?", so under this logic, do you really, absolutely believe that tit-for-tat or vindictiveness is the way to resolve things? Because this is what you're implying, that instead of looking at a woman abusing her power and going "man, if there was a way to stop this..." you'd rather go "man she's such a bitch! But I'll show her a lesson! She fucked me over so I'll fuck her over too! It's my right and privilege!"

"I don't trust a woman with a man's life either. There's plenty of women who'd fuck a guy over as well out of spite or other petty reasons. Just because we're talking about this particular topic, and I don't see how putting men in a default position of trust and responsibility over a woman's life is a good idea, doesn't mean I agree with the opposite statement."
Well I won't argue with you that this is pretty stupid, but marriage in general is just a convoluted mess.

"My alternative suggestion is to not make men pay alimony for the baby under certain circumstances. Not all circumstances are equal, and some of them do require for alimony, but not all of them require so, so learning about the issue is important as well and see which reasons are ridiculous under which men can be hit with alimony."
An alimony would only be if the parents divorced. Essentially you're giving people the right to say "fuck that bitch, if she won't have an abortion, Ima divorce her ass and refuse to pay fo dat child". My spidy senses say that isn't going to help birth rates, divorce rates or family stability.

"so under this logic, do you really, absolutely believe that tit-for-tat or vindictiveness is the way to resolve things? Because this is what you're implying, that instead of looking at a woman abusing her power and going "man, if there was a way to stop this..." you'd rather go "man she's such a bitch! But I'll show her a lesson! She fucked me over so I'll fuck her over too! It's my right and privilege!""

This is literally what criminal justice and car insurance is. If we didn't operate under a tit-for-tat system, I could kill your dog (if you have one) and you couldn't do anything about it because that would be "vindictive". Car insurance is literally "since you bumped into me, I'm going to sue your ass" which of course means car insurance company #2 will sue back, the winner gets their client their insurance claim.

Is it perfect? No. Is it fucked up? Kinda. Does it work? Yeah.