Abortion Male ownership/responsibility/obligation/active participation in creation

We always look at the abortion issue as being about women. What should men's responsibility be? What should their obligation be? What percentage of their pay check should they get to keep after paying for the welfare of the woman who had their baby and for the welfare of their baby? Should there be a womb rental rate for men who want the baby brought to term if the woman disagrees but carries to term anyway to please him, if they are not married?

Let's look at this logically for a moment shall we? From another stand point.

I live in the USA, and I realize this might be different elsewhere in the world but I don't know in what ways. So I must discuss this issue as I know it.

Raising a baby, in my state to adulthood costs, about $500 plus thousand dollars. Average cost in the USA is about $300 thousand dollars. Next expense $30 thousand to have the baby in the hospital. Plus the costs of prenatal care. Then in this country a woman gets 3 months unpaid leave to have the baby. That is all. Women have various situations in their lives, sometimes they must finish high school. Should the man quit to take responsibility for the baby so she can finish high school or college which costs something like $60 thousand a year in this country? What compromises should be made? Who is responsible? How much of her life should she have to give up? Should he have to give up the same amount? I would argue tacking on an extra 9 months carrying it to term?

If she gets pregnant, does his responsibility change based on the effort HE made to prevent it? There are after all herbs that impact male fertility that he could have taken and didn't. There are condoms and if he didn't use one.... Well.... Did he even ask what precautions she was taking or did he just not give a fu

ck because the problem is hers if she conceives? Has he had a hysterectomy? A hysterectomy is on average between $5000 and $10000. A lot less than a baby and reversible later.

Should men be required to keep a bank account containing a certain amount of money to cover these costs before we legally permit them to even have sex? After all we are talking about laws to control a woman's boduy and what she can do with it. Wouldn't such a law surrounding the bank account quote in case of emergency be reasonable to have to control men's bodies? Why? Why not?

If abortion is going to be a woman's issue, then shouldn't it just be one we leave to women to decide without men getting a vote? If not, why should they get a vote and under what circumstances? Personal choices are personal choices because they are PERSONAL as a result of their IMPACT. So, let's talk about the impact to men or what impact it should have on men in order to made illegal for women to choose. Let's look at this subject from another angle shall we?

So, don't get me wrong but this is my opinion:

Short answer: No, guys shouldn't "Pay" for a "womb-rental" or something in that place. Neither would I say that they have to pay for anything. Not because there's not a reason, but for the following:
If, and then I mean in a normal way, you both decide to have sex, you know that there's always a small risk of getting a child. Therefore you both "agree" on that risk once you go for it.
Now I'm only talking about if people with their own free will decide to do so, not about other things. Therefore you should both endure the risk and be ready to pay (at least) 50/50 (could be depending on income) of eventual costs.

Long answer, all collums seperated:

We always look at the abortion issue as being about women. What should men's responsibility be? What should their obligation be? What percentage of their pay check should they get to keep after paying for the welfare of the woman who had their baby and for the welfare of their baby? Should there be a womb rental rate for men who want the baby brought to term if the woman disagrees but carries to term anyway to please him, if they are not married?

Both should be as responsible for their actions, besides the costs that there are. If, one if the "parents" to call them, disagrees on having the child, in my opinion this subject should have been spoken about before doing so.
If either one of them disagrees on having, for example, an morning-after or abortion if there's a wish of no children, this should be respected and if not, you shouldn't be playing around.

Let's look at this logically for a moment shall we? From another stand point.

I live in the USA, and I realize this might be different elsewhere in the world but I don't know in what ways. So I must discuss this issue as I know it.

Raising a baby, in my state to adulthood costs, about $500 plus thousand dollars. Average cost in the USA is about $300 thousand dollars. Next expense $30 thousand to have the baby in the hospital. Plus the costs of prenatal care. Then in this country a woman gets 3 months unpaid leave to have the baby. That is all. Women have various situations in their lives, sometimes they must finish high school. Should the man quit to take responsibility for the baby so she can finish high school or college which costs something like $60 thousand a year in this country? What compromises should be made? Who is responsible? How much of her life should she have to give up? Should he have to give up the same amount? I would argue tacking on an extra 9 months carrying it to term?

This, I think, really depends on the place of where it happens. For example, as far as I know: In the Netherlands, as long as you have your health insurance ready, you only have to pay your own risk (which maximizes up to €875 a year, but mostly people have it around €375) so that should be affordable. Womans get here +- 16 weeks paid leave (can be longer, but less pay) during the end of the pregnancy (Mostly 6 weeks before til 10 weeks after) and men can also get a reduced paycheck for a short-term leave (I believe it's 5 weeks within the first 6 months) to take care of their child.

About finishing school/college/ quitting jobs, I think you should have your life in order before you should start a family, but as said before this is completely just my opinion.

Depending on the income you should share it equally, but I think in a good relationship this shouldn't be a real problem. For what matters the time, I think you both are the parents, so you should be both available for your own child. As it's for both "parties" an inflict to your life as alot will change, and you have to be aware of that.

If she gets pregnant, does his responsibility change based on the effort HE made to prevent it? There are after all herbs that impact male fertility that he could have taken and didn't. There are condoms and if he didn't use one.... Well.... Did he even ask what precautions she was taking or did he just not give a fuck because the problem is hers if she conceives? Has he had a hysterectomy? A hysterectomy is on average between $5000 and $10000. A lot less than a baby and reversible later.

As said before, I'm not really into the great fact that someone should be (getting) pregnant if one of them is unwilling. Even with herbs/fertility/condoms... there's always a small risk. As well for the Hysterectomy, there can always be some complications or stuff that's unchangeable.

Should men be required to keep a bank account containing a certain amount of money to cover these costs before we legally permit them to even have sex? After all we are talking about laws to control a woman's boduy and what she can do with it. Wouldn't such a law surrounding the bank account quote in case of emergency be reasonable to have to control men's bodies? Why? Why not?

Also with this, you're in with this together. It is, in my opinion, not that the father can't do anything whilst the woman is pregnant. For example he can prepare the rooms, fix some things that are a must to have etc etc. But I think, for having a child, you do need to have some money. So I do think you need to have a certain amount of money before you are going for having a child, but I think this is really hard to manage and "force", because what are you going to do if he/she doesn't have enough in their account?

Also, if you would "force" people to have an emergency bank-account, and they aren't willing to have a child, how will you check if that's really the case before you "release" the money?

Shortly: I do think people should have an x amount, but I don't think it's do-able to get that fixed.

If abortion is going to be a woman's issue, then shouldn't it just be one we leave to women to decide without men getting a vote? If not, why should they get a vote and under what circumstances? Personal choices are personal choices because they are PERSONAL as a result of their IMPACT. So, let's talk about the impact to men or what impact it should have on men in order to made illegal for women to choose. Let's look at this subject from another angle shall we?

Aswell ; don't take risks if you aren't willing to take the results. But IF there's a case that one of them didn't consist but still have a child, I think the woman should be the one in charge, but also in a reasonable way, for example:

Woman: wants the child, father really doesn't:
As it is in the body of the woman I wouldn't say that abortion would be the way, as it's her body. But she is aknowledged that he isn't willing/capable of having the child, and therefore she cannot expect everything from him, not full payments or help or such.

Other way around: Woman doesn't want is, It can effect the mental health of the man and should be taken in mind. But it still is the woman's body, and therefore I think they should decide.

If there's anything unclear, mistakenly wroten or something else let me know, just wrote this whilst I'm kinda tired but this is my though on it.

As well, It's just my opinion, feel free to discuss but keep it nicely in case you disagree.

So, don't get me wrong but this is my opinion:

Short answer: No, guys shouldn't "Pay" for a "womb-rental" or something in that place. Neither would I say that they have to pay for anything. Not because there's not a reason, but for the following:
If, and then I mean in a normal way, you both decide to have sex, you know that there's always a small risk of getting a child. Therefore you both "agree" on that risk once you go for it.
Now I'm only talking about if people with their own free will decide to do so, not about other things. Therefore you should both endure the risk and be ready to pay (at least) 50/50 (could be depending on income) of eventual costs.

Long answer, all collums seperated:

Both should be as responsible for their actions, besides the costs that there are. If, one if the "parents" to call them, disagrees on having the child, in my opinion this subject should have been spoken about before doing so.
If either one of them disagrees on having, for example, an morning-after or abortion if there's a wish of no children, this should be respected and if not, you shouldn't be playing around.

This, I think, really depends on the place of where it happens. For example, as far as I know: In the Netherlands, as long as you have your health insurance ready, you only have to pay your own risk (which maximizes up to €875 a year, but mostly people have it around €375) so that should be affordable. Womans get here +- 16 weeks paid leave (can be longer, but less pay) during the end of the pregnancy (Mostly 6 weeks before til 10 weeks after) and men can also get a reduced paycheck for a short-term leave (I believe it's 5 weeks within the first 6 months) to take care of their child.

About finishing school/college/ quitting jobs, I think you should have your life in order before you should start a family, but as said before this is completely just my opinion.

Depending on the income you should share it equally, but I think in a good relationship this shouldn't be a real problem. For what matters the time, I think you both are the parents, so you should be both available for your own child. As it's for both "parties" an inflict to your life as alot will change, and you have to be aware of that.

As said before, I'm not really into the great fact that someone should be (getting) pregnant if one of them is unwilling. Even with herbs/fertility/condoms... there's always a small risk. As well for the Hysterectomy, there can always be some complications or stuff that's unchangeable.

Also with this, you're in with this together. It is, in my opinion, not that the father can't do anything whilst the woman is pregnant. For example he can prepare the rooms, fix some things that are a must to have etc etc. But I think, for having a child, you do need to have some money. So I do think you need to have a certain amount of money before you are going for having a child, but I think this is really hard to manage and "force", because what are you going to do if he/she doesn't have enough in their account?

Also, if you would "force" people to have an emergency bank-account, and they aren't willing to have a child, how will you check if that's really the case before you "release" the money?

Shortly: I do think people should have an x amount, but I don't think it's do-able to get that fixed.

Aswell ; don't take risks if you aren't willing to take the results. But IF there's a case that one of them didn't consist but still have a child, I think the woman should be the one in charge, but also in a reasonable way, for example:

Woman: wants the child, father really doesn't:
As it is in the body of the woman I wouldn't say that abortion would be the way, as it's her body. But she is aknowledged that he isn't willing/capable of having the child, and therefore she cannot expect everything from him, not full payments or help or such.

Other way around: Woman doesn't want is, It can effect the mental health of the man and should be taken in mind. But it still is the woman's body, and therefore I think they should decide.

If there's anything unclear, mistakenly wroten or something else let me know, just wrote this whilst I'm kinda tired but this is my though on it.

As well, It's just my opinion, feel free to discuss but keep it nicely in case you disagree.

So, ok, you feel a man has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, while having no obligation of any kind to cover the costs of the life he forces her to bring into the world? Do I have that right, as your opener as you say men have no obligation because both know the risks. But only one is truly responsible for them. Fair enough. So then men are fine when they date a wo0man for 20 years and she still says no to sex? I doubt it. So given that fact.... I disagree that because they assume the risk to her together that he has no obligation.

The whole point is many in this forum think a morn9ing after abortion is unacceptable and should not be legal. I am not opposed to abortion, morning after or somewhat later. But I too of course prefer babies born. I think we all do. The issue is, why should men who are not even the father get a vote on what a woman does with her body? If they are getting a vote ok, but don't they then have a responsibility to what they force this woman to bring into the world? If so what is a man's responsibility? In the USA, men never married to the mother typically pay 15% IF YOU ARE LUCKY. A ummm "token amount" that acknowledges responsibility. To which I say bullshit. Half the cost and nothing less acknowledges responsibility. Society offers NOTHING. So, that means it is literally ALL on the woman.

Should and shouldn't is a lovely sentiment. I prolly shouldn't eat this chocolate bunny I decapitated yesterday.... But gonna eat it anyway. Cuz should and shouldn't aren't the issue. When do people do what they should? We do what we know we probably shouldn't every day. So while it would be lovely if we lived in a world where everyone did the right thing, we don't. Damn, this chocolate bunny is delicious.

I agree with you to some extent on the where it happens bit. In this country for many it isn't really a choice. It is a question of themselves and their economic long term stability and ability to live in a house rather than in a paper box by the river raising the child they never planned to have. Elsewhere, it can be treated as more of a true choice. In that, for example in Suomi (Finland) they give a baby box to help, preschool is paid for, there is a tax credit to help pay for the baby's welfare too. Men are held to a far higher rate than 15%. Which is a cop out not responsibility. And having the baby and the healthcare is very reasonable in cost. In such a situation, it truly does begin to become more of it just being an issue of preference related to being a mom or being childless. But in THIS country, where I am, it is a major the most major economic issue of our day because it sets women up for failure and it often forces them into bad long term relationships and makes them dependent upon those relationships and that isn't fair, when both lay down in that bed TOGETHER.

I tend to agree, it is best to PLAN these things. But very few people who abort do it because they planned to have a kid then just kinda said oh well I change my mind I just don't feel like it today. Usually those who do it, do it because this baby is NOT one that is planned for and it has created a major difficulty in their life which they feel is insurmountable often economically for them.

Agreed, there is always a chance. But do you seriously think celibacy is realistic? Really? Because I don't. There is also a risk to riding in a car. Do we all just not ride in them? NO. We add air bags, traffic laws, seat belts, etc, we do the best we can to prevent cars from being dangerous. Seems the same course with sex makes sense as well no?

So, forcing a woman to accept a squatter for 9 months is fine? But forcing men to have and maintain in a bank account their half of the upkeep for that squatter is ridiculous because men shouldn't be forced to do stuff? What a bullshit double standard. If one sex is to be forced to do something then it seems only fair and reasonable for such situations the other sex be forced to take his fair share of the responsibility and be forced to maintain himself in such a way that that fair share is easily available to him, in the event that some unforseen unplanned thing happens.

I actually don't disagree. Both parents should have the choice. There should be some space somewhere either before making a baby or directly following when the man can sign away his custody and declare he wants no child and if she has one it is up to her. Then she can choose knowing where he stands if she wants to assume that responsibility, I find NOTHING unfair about that.

So, ok, you feel a man has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, while having no obligation of any kind to cover the costs of the life he forces her to bring into the world? Do I have that right, as your opener as you say men have no obligation because both know the risks. But only one is truly responsible for them. Fair enough. So then men are fine when they date a wo0man for 20 years and she still says no to sex? I doubt it. So given that fact.... I disagree that because they assume the risk to her together that he has no obligation.

May I ask where you read that I say that a man can tell a woman what to do? I mean, if, in the case you mean right now, a man really doesn't want to have kids for 20 years, then I'm pretty sure they will have something fixed (probably forever). Therefore they basically stand for their opinion that they do not want to have kids, and I suppose, but could be wrong, that a woman (that dated that guy for 20 years) will probably agree on not having kids in that way?

The whole point is many in this forum think a morn9ing after abortion is unacceptable and should not be legal. I am not opposed to abortion, morning after or somewhat later. But I too of course prefer babies born. I think we all do. The issue is, why should men who are not even the father get a vote on what a woman does with her body?

^This part I don't really get, as to which "men" are you referring in this context, based that you said that it that it are "men who are not even the father"

I do not agree in anyone getting the right over someone elses body, only with consent (Example, for donation that you for example agree on donating organs, and that your parents get to decide wether they want it or not, even though I'd say the opinion of the person itself is a stronger will)

If they are getting a vote ok, but don't they then have a responsibility to what they force this woman to bring into the world? If so what is a man's responsibility? In the USA, men never married to the mother typically pay 15% IF YOU ARE LUCKY. A ummm "token amount" that acknowledges responsibility. To which I say bullshit. Half the cost and nothing less acknowledges responsibility. Society offers NOTHING. So, that means it is literally ALL on the woman.

Again no clue what you actually mean by "getting a vote" as, at least for what I know, in the Netherlands the rights are nearly equal (I'm sure there's some differenciations somewhere but).

In the Netherlands for example, if you divorce or have problems, the father has to pay child support till the kid has aged 21 which is, depending on some subjects, around 100-500 euro a month. (According to google and many sites, don't know the real deal but seems to be correct.)

* Edit, the highest-income should pay the other half for compensation, only if the kids live like 50/50 by the 2 parents, if the case is that for example the kids are going to live fully with the father, the mother should pay an X amount (decided together or by court) monthly to still take care, till the age of 21.

Should and shouldn't is a lovely sentiment. I prolly shouldn't eat this chocolate bunny I decapitated yesterday.... But gonna eat it anyway. Cuz should and shouldn't aren't the issue. When do people do what they should? We do what we know we probably shouldn't every day. So while it would be lovely if we lived in a world where everyone did the right thing, we don't. Damn, this chocolate bunny is delicious.

True, but you gotta know (and you do know) that there are some "risks" by doing those things. Ofcourse a chocolate bunny is a bit different than having unprotected sex for example.

I agree with you to some extent on the where it happens bit. In this country for many it isn't really a choice. It is a question of themselves and their economic long term stability and ability to live in a house rather than in a paper box by the river raising the child they never planned to have. Elsewhere, it can be treated as more of a true choice. In that, for example in Suomi (Finland) they give a baby box to help, preschool is paid for, there is a tax credit to help pay for the baby's welfare too.

In the Netherlands there are also some supports for children, you can get free things if needed from special communities, also can get child allowance for like the childcare, it doesn't cover it all the way but you'll get some help.

Also the Primary school and Secundairy education are paid by the government, besides some items (books, notebooks, name those things) as well the own risk in the healthcare (see previous message) is covered by the government till 18 years old.

Men are held to a far higher rate than 15%. Which is a cop out not responsibility. And having the baby and the healthcare is very reasonable in cost. In such a situation, it truly does begin to become more of it just being an issue of preference related to being a mom or being childless. But in THIS country, where I am, it is a major the most major economic issue of our day because it sets women up for failure and it often forces them into bad long term relationships and makes them dependent upon those relationships and that isn't fair, when both lay down in that bed TOGETHER.

I think I get your point, but as I live in a different place with different rules I tend to have difficulties understanding how it went so... let's say "bad" in those cases.

I tend to agree, it is best to PLAN these things. But very few people who abort do it because they planned to have a kid then just kinda said oh well I change my mind I just don't feel like it today. Usually those who do it, do it because this baby is NOT one that is planned for and it has created a major difficulty in their life which they feel is insurmountable often economically for them.

Agreed, there is always a chance. But do you seriously think celibacy is realistic? Really? Because I don't. There is also a risk to riding in a car. Do we all just not ride in them? NO. We add air bags, traffic laws, seat belts, etc, we do the best we can to prevent cars from being dangerous. Seems the same course with sex makes sense as well no?

It's true that, nowadays people have a lower, let's say, treshold? for having sex and going out comparing to other generations. Partly it's good that we're more open, but it seems to have to create more problems than there were. Not saying everything in the 60's were great, but if I hear stories from my grandparents that they weren't even allowed to do things and be together etc. etc. and that they are still married, is a way different way of living than people these days being married for 6 months and either way breaking apart or going to someone else.

Not saying it didn't happen those times, but it seems to happen way more often, as well to statistics about these numbers. Not saying that people shouldn't marry but the "level" of when to marry, seems way lower than previous.

So, forcing a woman to accept a squatter for 9 months is fine? But forcing men to have and maintain in a bank account their half of the upkeep for that squatter is ridiculous because men shouldn't be forced to do stuff? What a bullshit double standard. If one sex is to be forced to do something then it seems only fair and reasonable for such situations the other sex be forced to take his fair share of the responsibility and be forced to maintain himself in such a way that that fair share is easily available to him, in the event that some unforseen unplanned thing happens.

No clue what you mean in this sentence with squatter but I think the way of living whilst being pregnant. As said, forcing anyone I do not agree on, yet you tend to keep throwing this in even though I didn't mention it somewhere, which makes this open "discussion" kind of hard in my opinion.

What I don't understand is, how you think money will compare the whole pregnancy/giving birth (including risks). I mean ofcourse you do and deal with things together, but I simply do not agree that you can force someone. Not into being pregnant, not into giving birth, not into claiming items/money if this has been discussed/spoken about before. But maybe therefore I'm not a lawyer.
I mean, if the woman would give birth (let's say, unknown pregnancy, is rare but happens) and the man decides he wants to keep the child, but the mother doesn't want to. You'd plead for the woman to pay the man then as well if we're talking about double standards?

I actually don't disagree. Both parents should have the choice. There should be some space somewhere either before making a baby or directly following when the man can sign away his custody and declare he wants no child and if she has one it is up to her. Then she can choose knowing where he stands if she wants to assume that responsibility, I find NOTHING unfair about that.

That's indeed someting I agree to too, but these days, to be fair, people always try to find ways out with lawsuits, so therefore I think you'll need to change a law to have people "sign" those things before like the date? Seems odd/not something people would do quicky, but if you spoke about the, lets call it risks and know eachother way of thinking including what could happen. It might be a saver.

As said, I do want to talk about these things, I like sharing opinions and opening minds, but please try to keep it not very strong/attacking as, for what I read, it seemed like you threw some words into my sentences that I didn't wrote. As well is my English not perfect and I try to read everything well but might be that I skipped something due my dyslexia, so sorry in advantance.

May I ask where you read that I say that a man can tell a woman what to do? I mean, if, in the case you mean right now, a man really doesn't want to have kids for 20 years, then I'm pretty sure they will have something fixed (probably forever). Therefore they basically stand for their opinion that they do not want to have kids, and I suppose, but could be wrong, that a woman (that dated that guy for 20 years) will probably agree on not having kids in that way?

^This part I don't really get, as to which "men" are you referring in this context, based that you said that it that it are "men who are not even the father"

I do not agree in anyone getting the right over someone elses body, only with consent (Example, for donation that you for example agree on donating organs, and that your parents get to decide wether they want it or not, even though I'd say the opinion of the person itself is a stronger will)

Again no clue what you actually mean by "getting a vote" as, at least for what I know, in the Netherlands the rights are nearly equal (I'm sure there's some differenciations somewhere but).

In the Netherlands for example, if you divorce or have problems, the father has to pay child support till the kid has aged 21 which is, depending on some subjects, around 100-500 euro a month. (According to google and many sites, don't know the real deal but seems to be correct.)

* Edit, the highest-income should pay the other half for compensation, only if the kids live like 50/50 by the 2 parents, if the case is that for example the kids are going to live fully with the father, the mother should pay an X amount (decided together or by court) monthly to still take care, till the age of 21.

True, but you gotta know (and you do know) that there are some "risks" by doing those things. Ofcourse a chocolate bunny is a bit different than having unprotected sex for example.

In the Netherlands there are also some supports for children, you can get free things if needed from special communities, also can get child allowance for like the childcare, it doesn't cover it all the way but you'll get some help.

Also the Primary school and Secundairy education are paid by the government, besides some items (books, notebooks, name those things) as well the own risk in the healthcare (see previous message) is covered by the government till 18 years old.

I think I get your point, but as I live in a different place with different rules I tend to have difficulties understanding how it went so... let's say "bad" in those cases.

It's true that, nowadays people have a lower, let's say, treshold? for having sex and going out comparing to other generations. Partly it's good that we're more open, but it seems to have to create more problems than there were. Not saying everything in the 60's were great, but if I hear stories from my grandparents that they weren't even allowed to do things and be together etc. etc. and that they are still married, is a way different way of living than people these days being married for 6 months and either way breaking apart or going to someone else.

Not saying it didn't happen those times, but it seems to happen way more often, as well to statistics about these numbers. Not saying that people shouldn't marry but the "level" of when to marry, seems way lower than previous.

No clue what you mean in this sentence with squatter but I think the way of living whilst being pregnant. As said, forcing anyone I do not agree on, yet you tend to keep throwing this in even though I didn't mention it somewhere, which makes this open "discussion" kind of hard in my opinion.

What I don't understand is, how you think money will compare the whole pregnancy/giving birth (including risks). I mean ofcourse you do and deal with things together, but I simply do not agree that you can force someone. Not into being pregnant, not into giving birth, not into claiming items/money if this has been discussed/spoken about before. But maybe therefore I'm not a lawyer.
I mean, if the woman would give birth (let's say, unknown pregnancy, is rare but happens) and the man decides he wants to keep the child, but the mother doesn't want to. You'd plead for the woman to pay the man then as well if we're talking about double standards?

That's indeed someting I agree to too, but these days, to be fair, people always try to find ways out with lawsuits, so therefore I think you'll need to change a law to have people "sign" those things before like the date? Seems odd/not something people would do quicky, but if you spoke about the, lets call it risks and know eachother way of thinking including what could happen. It might be a saver.

As said, I do want to talk about these things, I like sharing opinions and opening minds, but please try to keep it not very strong/attacking as, for what I read, it seemed like you threw some words into my sentences that I didn't wrote. As well is my English not perfect and I try to read everything well but might be that I skipped something due my dyslexia, so sorry in advantance.

Sorry I must respond in several pieces due to character limitations.

I am dyslexic also actually. All 3 forms to a nearly unheard of extreme. Go me! So, I hear that.... And I completely understand it.

In the USA, women across the country are forced to carry to term. In many states, abortion is illegal, a felony and can get you 20 years or more in prison. In theory in some states it can get you a death sentence now. Not all states are this stupid and sick however. Some are more reasonable. However, since the over turning of Roe V Wade, the government vastly made up of men, who seem to have no idea how the female reproductive system works.... And seem to be under the delusion that if you are still breathing after being raped, you weren't raped, cuz you didn't fight him hard ebnough if he wasn't forced to murder you first. In Massachusetts, where I live I still have choice. But for how long? Who knows. For me this issue isn't theoretical. The law in many states does not allow a woman to abort even if her life is in danger or even if the baby is dead inside her already. Even natural miscarriage in this country in some places can have a woman sent to prison now. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/georgia-woman-charged-after-miscarriage-despite-autopsy-confirming-natural-fetal-death/ar-AA1BTZcH Here, on life of the mother, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851775/oklahoma-woman-abortion-ban-study-shows-confusion-at-hospitals and here https://abcnews.go.com/US/delayed-denied-women-pushed-deaths-door-abortion-care/story?id=105563255

In the US, now even HELPING a woman go get medical care an abortion, can get third parties sued. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/03/texas-republican-abortion-civil-lawsuits/ What is more, outside abortion clinics you semi regularly have people bombing. People who want to blow up the clinic. They scream and yell and curse the women who go in. Often men that these women have never even met before. But they want to tell her what to do with her body. Even here on this forum. I see men having loud opinions about what hypothetical women with no connection to them personally. This I don't understand. Now, I realize this is not the situation in the Netherlands. But they are pushing these crazy things all over this country. Including where I live. And usually there is no exemption even for the life of the mother. As a woman, for me, this isn't just a debate. This is literally a fight over my right to continue living, should I become pregnant, and should something go wrong with my pregnancy, or with my health during it I can be left maimed or dead. So I apologize if I am harsh on this subject, but for me, this is literally defending my right to live. Again, it isn't the same situation everywhere.

Glad to hear you don't believe anyone should control anyone else's body. Thank you for not being a neanderthal. Truly it is appreciated.

100% agree. If one has primary or sole custody the other should be paying. Doesn't matter if the one paying is the man or woman. In the US with shared custody, the dad takes the kid every other weekend. The mother has the kid the rest of the time. The father pays *UP TO* 50% of the child's needs. The rest the woman must pay somehow, which means high additional costs for preschool and other ways to occupy the kid while she works to pay for the house they live in the majority of the food they eat, all while being the responsible on call parent nearly 100% of the time.

I am 45 years old just about. Of course *I* know there are risks to sex. But many young people in the USA, are homeschooled by religious fanatics, or the state declines to teach sex education. So many young people often teenagers DON'T understand in full how their own bodies work what the risks are or how to be safe. The Christian agenda in this country is alarmingly strong and it is dominating everything including common sense and education. Prayer is back in many schools now. Sex education is out. Only 24% of biology programs in highschool teach about evolution because the Christian agenda and programming shuts down the ability to teach it and even have a discussion about it and then move on to other subjects of biology. Instead we are expected to only learn the other subjects of biology but how the fuck does that even work without the most fundimental lesson of biology? So this is the American situation. Many young people have NO idea how their bodies work or what the risks are.

In the USA, NONE of that support and free stuff exists. These people are out there trying to force women to have babies but fuck the little freeloader if it needs preschool or breakfast at school or healthcare or anything at all. They get very angry and abusive. They call these women who must turn to the system bad names, there is stigma and they take a lot of abuse. Most in this country who want babies born do not give a fuck about them once they exit the mother's body. It isn't about the baby at all. Or they would care enough to feed it if she can't. Instead, it is about punishing women for having sex out of wedlock, or having sex at all. They view the child as the method for that punishment. It is amazingly sick.

Did discussion of these matters create the problems? Or were the problems always there we just didn't discuss them because the system was designed to force women out of the conversation and into subservience in the past? In the USA, until the 80s children were property of the father. The mother had no legal right to them in a divorce. Until the mid 1970s a woman could not have her own bank account. She had to have a husband or a father on it with her. I was born in 1980. It hadn't been a thing for very long for women to be able to open a bank account or get credit cards independent of husband or father.

Squatter is english vernacular for someone who takes over a building belonging to someone else and doesn't pay them rent. Often the building is derelict but not always. They have no legal right to be there, but they won't leave and they won't pay. They go to court arguing the abandonment of the place or some other tenant favoring bullshit and we call this "squatters rights." Isn't a fetus a squatter if the mother wants it out? It doesn't pay rent. It has a free unconventional place to live.

Agreed people signing stuff can prove strange and a date buzz kill, but perhaps it should be something society encourages? Just to keep clarity.

But, anyway it is very late probably where you are. Trusten and have a good night.

So, basically. The main subject are the cases based in the USA and not throughout the whole world. I know they are very restricted with abortion and such, but I thought you specified it about the general subject, not just a specific place.

The basic points I see here is:

-1. USA has, let's call it a problem with their laws based on their beliefs forcing people to become in trouble, even if they don't want that. In this case, isn't the state the one who should pay and help the parent(s), as even they might have a wish to cancel the pregnancy, they can't and therefore are "forced" by the law.

2. The schooling seems to be a bit weird (no offense) but main things as human biology should in my opinion always be taught.

We already have an active topic on abortion, I'm not sure it was necessary to make an additional one

I think it was. As the first one explored the issue as if it were a woman's problem and choice and responsibility. The goal here is to explore the other side. But if you don't like it or feel threatened that we are looking at the male side of the story and what his responsibility should be, then I totally understand that.

Thanks for clarifying. Please make one about the baby's perspective then, so we have an opportunity to go full circle.

https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development One could argue, that a baby doesn't really have a perspective until it's brain is fully developed at age 25 years. By that logic, one could "abort" a 20 year old as it is still in development. ;P But I won't make that argument because we both also understand why it is quite ridiculous.

That said, 24 weeks and 24 years are not the same thing at all as far as the brain goes. I don't think a24 week old fetus or younger has any real views or even the capacity for views given the brain development at that phase. But sure, ok if you want to a political argument from the perspective of someone unable to create a perspective that is fine. I would be happy to discuss that. However, I am a 45 year old woman almost, you are significantly closer to the age of a fetus than I am. I have forgotten much of what it is to be young and have even less recollection of my life as a womb squatter. So, I suggest you begin that discussion if it is one you think is really worth having from the perspective of a 24 week old fetus. Which I would argue that due to brain development probably isn't really capable of one in any meaningful way. Where as a pregnant woman very much is.