"GOP Lawmaker Wants a Woman to Get Permission From the Father Before Having an Abortion." Unsurprisingly, when its labeled MensRights, it simply means taking away a womans rights.

See, I really don't think the concept of financial abortion is simply "bald-faced selfishness."

Once a woman gets pregnant, she has the right to abort the fetus. This essentially gives her the ability to prevent the burden of a child before it happens. If the mother has the right and ability to abort the child, then the father should have the right to say he either wants her to get an abortion, or give up all rights and responsibilities to the child to be. This would basically give the male abortion rights, without forcing the mother to do so. If the mother decides to carry the fetus to term, then she would be completely responsible for it because the choice was completely hers. The fact that the child will no longer have a father around, or money from him is immaterial to the question because the child was completely the choice of the mother. If she was incapable of taking care of the child on her own, she shouldn't have made the decision to carry it to term. Yes the child may have it rougher, but that is not the fathers fault, it's the mothers. If the child is brought to term with the fathers knowledge and without protest, then he would forfeit his right to give up rights and responsibilities because the child was both their decision, not just hers. One more thing I wanted to clear up is the issue of birth control. Many people are saying that even if the mother brings the child to term against his protests, it should still be his responsibility because he failed to use birth control or made a poor choice of sexual partner. The problem with this argument is that birth control is fallible. There are very few completely effective birth control treatments on the market. Furthermore, the mother could easily lie about being on birth control. As for choosing a your sexual partners more wisely, you can't know everything about a person, or how they will react in any given circumstance no matter how well you know them.

The whole idea is to preserve maximum amount of freedom for both sides. At the end of the day, there is going to have to be some give somewhere. I think the best place to put it is with the person carrying the child. If she does want to carry to term, she should have the right. She should not however be allowed to force that responsibility on the would be father. I believe that the idea of a "financial abortion" in which the father is given notice and a chance to absolve himself of any responsibility regarding the child is the most fair and equal way to do it. In my opinion, forcing a woman to have an abortion is an unreasonable demand (obviously, as if banning her from having one), giving her the choice of an abortion, adoption, or raising the child alone gives her the maximum amount of freedom for the minimum loss thereof.

/r/TheBluePill Thread Link - np.reddit.com