financial/male 'abortion' rights?

[Energize]

Let's invest in our future generations, not in foreign aid to corrupt regimes, or financing pointless wars.
It's not their income being spent, it's the government taxes. If it's not invested in the children it will be spent elsewhere.

There is no such thing as government money, there is only taxpayer money. Of course it is peoples income being spent.

Perhaps I misunderstood... but you seem to not want the state to pay for other people's kids.

The parents should be paying for everything, things like child benefit shouldn't be dished out like candy to people earning £80k while people earning minimum wage and paying tax on it can't afford rent. It's the poor subsidising the rich!

I'm not saying we should go back to the Victorian times where there is no safety net, but it shouldn't be a given that I have to pay for other peoples kids when the parents can afford it. We have created a society dependent on the welfare state instead of having self sufficiency, it's very sad.

 

[Tefal]

That's why if it was to be allowed the financial "abortion" would have to be agreed prior to sex. The woman then has complete understanding of where they stand in the event of pregnancy. They can then take a more informed decision on whether they are willing to have sex with someone.

That way both parties can go into the act with informed decisions. Currently it's a rather one sided "agreement".

jesus christ do any of you live int he real world?

is everyone supposed to drag around 2 witnesses to sign the contract before they get shagging?

 

[KNiVES]

Instead of trying out these convoluted solutions how about you just wrap your damn package up? Men who get women pregnant have nobody to blame but themselves. If you didn't want to pay for a baby you should have thought with your big head not your little one. Personal responsibility is such a novel concept to a lot of people!

 

[Amp34]

jesus christ do any of you live int he real world?

is everyone supposed to drag around 2 witnesses to sign the contract before they get shagging?

Well yes, therein lies the issue. It would work for longer term relationships, but not for that one night stand.

Honestly I have no idea which is more the "issue" regarding unplanned and unwanted pregnancies from the male financial standpoint. Personally if it were to be made legal I doubt it would be enforceable in most circumstances due o those caveats.

Even if you allowed it post conception (up to the 13 weeks suggested earlier, something I'd have to be persuaded is reasonable) then you still have the issue that the woman could just insist they didn't know they were pregnant until after those 13 weeks.

 

[Amp34]

Instead of trying out these convoluted solutions how about you just wrap your damn package up? Men who get women pregnant have nobody to blame but themselves. If you didn't want to pay for a baby you should have thought with your big head not your little one. Personal responsibility is such a novel concept to a lot of people!

That's fine until you consider it an argument against abortion in general as dowie has mentioned previouslyz

There are also a myriad of other instances where lack of personal/financial responsibility is considered acceptable (to various degrees) in our society today. From the previously mentioned adoption to use of the NHS. Should someone injured while drunk, or careless driving , or even injured during sports) have to pay for their treatment? Are they not getting out of their personal/financial responsibility, forcing the state to pick up the cost of their "stupidity" and/or poor reasoning?

 

[diamount]

It's called a condom. Next.

 

[D.P.]

That's why if it was to be allowed the financial "abortion" would have to be agreed prior to sex. The woman then has complete understanding of where they stand in the event of pregnancy. They can then take a more informed decision on whether they are willing to have sex with someone.

That way both parties can go into the act with informed decisions. Currently it's a rather one sided "agreement".

This would make much more sense if there was a legally binding contract before engaging in sexual activity.

 

[NewGamer11]

Instead of trying out these convoluted solutions how about you just wrap your damn package up? Men who get women pregnant have nobody to blame but themselves. If you didn't want to pay for a baby you should have thought with your big head not your little one. Personal responsibility is such a novel concept to a lot of people!

And how about women who "forget" to take their Pill or who poke holes in condoms or who fish used condoms out of bins to inseminate themselves?

 

[NewGamer11]

You get her pregnant you must pay for your child. It can never work any other way. Male "pill" is nearly here if you're worried.

Male pill, vasalgel, etc. are many years down the track if they ever arrive.

 

[FL630]

who fish used condoms out of bins to inseminate themselves?

Little bit of sick came up as I read that.

 

[Amp34]

This would make much more sense if there was a legally binding contract before engaging in sexual activity.

That was my take on the OP. That there would need to be a legally binding contract, rather than just a few "grunts" prior to the act.

 

[NewGamer11]

^^ I was shocked too.

 

[LabR@t]

Have a vastectomy if you are that worried.

 

[adolf hamster]

how about option c?

compulsory vasectomy of all males combined with optional freezing of necessary materials to be stored in a central government bank.

should an individual wish to have a child the only way to access stored "reserves" will be to complete a government assessment of character and financial standing of the parents-to-be to ensure their fitness for providing a safe and stable environment for the child, and their willingness to accept the responsibility.

at this stage you can then ban non-medical abortions as they won't be needed, jeremy kyle goes out of business, and we will no longer need child benefits as nobody who needs them will be having kids, and everyone can be as randy as they like.

*Disclaimer: AH Enterprises ltd forbids the reproduction, distribution or re-sale of this message, doing so removes any rights herein. in addition any attempts to take this message seriously or to take offence to the content or language used is solely at the readers discretion and there are no warranties expressed or implied. any views expressed by employees of AH Enterprises Ltd that are not delivered via approved channels (specifically the company website and the official company social media pages) are the views of the individual employee and the company cannot take responsibility for this content. by reading this disclaimer you accept these terms, by failing to read this disclaimer you forfeit any rights granted within. AH Enterprises Ltd takes intellectual property seriously and may take legal action if any of the terms of this disclaimer are abused by non-authorized third parties.

 

[kindai]

I think it's unfair for Men to have no say in whether they have children or not, with that said you obviously can't force a woman to have an abortion. I feel like unless a woman has deliberately planned to get pregnant without your prior knowledge then a man should be financially responsible for a child. The reason I feel like this is because ultimately the only loser here is going to be the child. More men being responsible for their children is what's required, not less. Kids need Dads, otherwise you end up with a generation of boys with no male role models who end up making bad life decisions and raising another generation like them. Ideally Men should be able to opt out in the same way Women can, but I don't see how that's viable without the child being the ultimate loser, and they essentially had no choice in this at all.

2 of my mates are/were in this situation.

Long term relationships, woman on the pill.

Both times, they stopped taking the pill without telling the man. Both got preggo, both refused an abortion but expected (and the state expected) the man to pick up the bill.

The one ended up on the hook for 18 years of child support. The other left the country.

 

[D.P.]

2 of my mates are/were in this situation.

Long term relationships, woman on the pill.

Both times, they stopped taking the pill without telling the man. Both got preggo, both refused an abortion but expected (and the state expected) the man to pick up the bill.

The one ended up on the hook for 18 years of child support. The other left the country.

Obviously these things happen but the man could use a condom (and in the near future, take the pill themselves), thereby putting control in their hands.

The other thing is that the female pill is not 100% effective in an case. As soon as you have sexual intercourse with someone there is a risk of pregnancy, all you can do is limit that risk. If a man enters a long term sexual relationship with a women then they have responsibility that there is a risk of pregnancy.
Signing a legal document before a legal Notary before commencing a sexual relationship would be one viable option to remove financial responsibly. But I'm not sure why a women would sign such a document, since accidents can happen why should she take 100% responsibility?

 

[LabR@t]

2 of my mates are/were in this situation.

Long term relationships, woman on the pill.

Both times, they stopped taking the pill without telling the man. Both got preggo, both refused an abortion but expected (and the state expected) the man to pick up the bill.

The one ended up on the hook for 18 years of child support. The other left the country.

Why did the relationship break down?

 

[johnny6]

2 of my mates are/were in this situation.

Long term relationships, woman on the pill.

Both times, they stopped taking the pill without telling the man. Both got preggo, both refused an abortion but expected (and the state expected) the man to pick up the bill.

The one ended up on the hook for 18 years of child support. The other left the country.

So both have to share responsibility for the blame as they both decided not take responsibility for contraception and leave it to the woman.

 

[D.P.]

That was my take on the OP. That there would need to be a legally binding contract, rather than just a few "grunts" prior to the act.

But then it is not an "abortion', but a pre-arranged legal contract. And I see no reason why a women would ever sign such a document

 

[NewGamer11]

So both have to share responsibility for the blame as they both decided not take responsibility for contraception and leave it to the woman.

Seriously? Deception by the woman is the man's fault?