4 ms·

I’m curious (since you mention things skewing male), do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not? As f

I’m curious (since you mention things skewing male), do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not? As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? Contraceptives should be untaxed and widely available. People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby. That being said women who are raped should be able to get an abortion imo

notch656a 4y ago
Personally, no. Consent can be revoked. Involuntary servitude is a violation of the 13th amendment. IMO a child can be abandoned without any moral guilt, so long as you leave them to their own devices or surrender them to someone else rather than say physically attacking them. I actually find abortion a much trickier subject because there's an eviction involved, and it becomes a trickier subject because some physical force is typically needed to remove the entity.
- rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
  The only person it is tricky for is the mother, who is the only person in the universe whos opinion matters on abortion, and we must abide by the decisions of the individual. Anything else is absolute horror of biological control and loss of bodily autonomy, and should be rightfully ignored, and anyone that thinks differently needs to think about minding their own business and not making a difficult thing more difficult. Those that use the legal system to enforce their hatred of women? Get off the planet please.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Personally I'm pro-abortion but I think it's trickier than you say. Evicting a living entity, even for people who are pretty progressive, is usually seen as a delicate subject. To me evicting an entity is a lot trickier subject than merely abandoning it, and the points against using force to evict that entity could have merit. Although we are both in agreement that you can safely abandon the life you created without any moral obligation. Personally I see no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth. Neither wrong, but abandoning before birth requires a forceful eviction. >The only person it is tricky for is the mother, who is the only person in the universe whos opinion matters on abortion, and we must abide by the decisions of the individual. I mean to frame it as only involved life as the mother I think is disingenuous. Perhaps the fetus is not viable but it has to be at least considered in this equation, even if only to decide offspring has no rights to compel their parent to keep them alive.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
      Ok good :-) I think my issue is the your idea of eviction, its not eviction, in the same way we don't 'evict' cancer, we 'treat' it. I think its best to leave it at 'no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth.'. Agreed. Lets not make this difficult situation harder for women who have to make very difficult decisions in life.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        IMO the courts did right though here revoking Roe v Wade. For such a tricky subject without enumeration of this right in the constitution, the constitutional basis for determining this would be allowing voters in the various states to decide. In some states they have decided to agree with you. In others they haven't. IMO supreme court did right here, and allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Democracy, if you will. That is, if you play by the rules of finding nations and constitutions to be legitimate :)
        rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        It would have been nicer to codify the rights before pulling the rug on it.
  - tjs8rj 4y ago
    Do you think abortion 10 minutes before birth is fine? Half way out the birth canal? 1 second after birth? Is there ever a time between conception and birth where you’d call it baby murder?
    - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
      Yes. Yes. Yes. No. anything else is none of your business.
f38zf5vdt 4y ago
That's fun, but many states are putting the cross hairs on contraception in general. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
- endisneigh 4y ago
  I agree, that’s an issue. That being said that’s not related directly to this ruling.
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    Indeed it is -- the ruling is about the fundamental right to privacy with regards to bodily autonomy. Without some major federal precedent like Roe V. Wade, states are free to impose to their medical will on their populace as they see fit.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      The right to privacy is not related directly contraceptions. Alito said as much in the opinion.
- skissane 4y ago
  They are targeting specific methods of contraception, which they claim are abortifacient. They have displayed zero signs of wanting to ban contraception in general, as opposed to just specific forms of it. By contrast, the law struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut was an across-the-board ban on all forms of contraception. I think it is unlikely that Griswold will ever be overturned – simply because it is unlikely any state will enact a total contraception ban. To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent. But almost nobody wants such a law now. 1965 (when Griswold was handed down), 1873 (when the law it overturned was enacted) was a very different world – when most Christians still believed that contraception was a sin. Nowadays, the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) accept contraception as moral at least in some cases. And while the Catholic Church teaches artificial contraception is inherently sinful, it displays no signs of any interest in having the government make that sin illegal (unlike the situation with abortion). You might find some crazy Catholic integralist advocating it, but the Bishops and the Vatican aren't going to. The bans on (allegedly) abortifacient contraceptive methods could be challenged, but I expect SCOTUS will uphold them – and the majority will probably just uphold them as state regulation of abortion, not overturning Griswold itself. However, I think a lot of groups are going to refuse to support challenges, on the grounds that they don't want to give this SCOTUS an opportunity to overturn any more precedents they support, rather save it for the day (whenever it may come) when there is a SCOTUS majority more amenable to their views.
runjake 4y ago
> as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) Here’s a good indicator: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/abortion-ruling-gay-rights-contraceptives/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/abortion-ruling-gay-... Spoiler: it looks like contraceptives are likely next for SCOTUS.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Is it? > He emphasized a line the majority opinion that said "[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." "We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life,'" Alito said.
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    Alito is one Justice -- Thomas stated that "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Sure, but Alito plus the others means it’ll never pass.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Many of the others called Roe v. Wade "settled law" in sworn statements. That didn't stop them from voting to overturn it today.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        Sure, but no state to my knowledge has banned all contraceptives, even though they already could so even in the hypothetical states would make them legal.
autoexec 4y ago
> do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not? As for me, I say no. If a woman can terminate the pregnancy. a man should be able to waive his part in it. That still leaves the issue of a man losing a child he wants if she doesn't, but that issue, as well as the issue of abortion, will be solved once we find a way to transplant the fetus to an artificial womb. Until then there are no perfect solutions. > As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? Contraceptives can and do fail. Even if you're doing everything right. Contraceptives help, and comprehensive sex ed promoting the correct use of contraceptives goes a long way to help prevent unwanted pregnancies (as evidenced by higher teen pregnancy rates where they only provide "abstinence only" ignorance) but it doesn't solve the problem. > People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby. "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. needlessly. More women will cruelly suffer. More children will cruelly suffer as well.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  > "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. Indeed, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not against abortion. The situations you’ve mentioned are good reasons to have it. My point is that the choice that people want already exists other than rape. Abortion should be legal, but not because reasons, but for medical necessity and for situations in which the choice that a woman does have is made for her (rape).
  - autoexec 4y ago
    My feeling is that until a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, it is dependent on the women's body. It feeds off of it. It takes her nutrients, her oxygen, her energy. It alters her body to accommodate itself. Pregnancy is a great and special sacrifice, and it must be one made willingly. At any point, prior to where the fetus could be viable without its mother, the mother should have every right to terminate that pregnancy for literally any reason at all. Anything less would deny women their right to have control of their own bodies and lives. Again, plenty of people end up pregnant against their will. Others will have fully intended to have a child, but their circumstances suddenly changed. It needn't always be due to some medical necessity. As long as the mother's body is needed to sustain the life of the child, that life is subject to her whims. Her house. Her rules. The moment it can be removed and sustained without her, she should no longer have the right to abort it, only to surrender it.
FpUser 4y ago
>"as long as contraception is legal" Contraception can and does fail. >"..as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby" I would refrain from judgement at late stages of pregnancy but early on it is not your business what they do. Mind your own business and do not stick nose where it does not belong. Also if you are so pro life why not to go and right away imprison every official whose action (like sending people to war when not directly attacked) cause death.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Why do you believe I’m pro life?
  - FpUser 4y ago
    From your original post it seems that only the rape constitutes grounds for abortion. Sounds pretty pro life to me unless I misunderstand the term.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      Pro life does not support abortion under any circumstances
- tjs8rj 4y ago
  If you’re pro choice then you must support pure freedom including citizens owning nukes, children taking heroin, and legalizing stealing from others right? Of course not. Pro choice is doesn’t literally mean “pro choice in all situations”, it’s shorthand for “abortion is a an individual choice and should be protected as such”. Likewise pro life doesn’t mean “save all lives in all situations at all costs”. It’s short hand for “abortion is murdering babies, that’s wrong and should be outlawed like any other murder”.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"abortion is a an individual choice and should be protected as such" This is exact my point of view, not sure what your overall post suppose to mean.
Tozen 4y ago
> As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? It's not so simple, when it comes to contraception, because various forms are controversial as well (even IUDs) and can also possibly become illegal. In a submission that was posted and flagged for unclear reasons, it refers to an article that discusses some of the complexities and gray areas involved, like abortion pills or women being accused of murder because they had a stillbirth under "suspicious circumstances" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-goi...). It might be worth a read, to see how various women can be looking at this issue, from a practical standpoint. > ...women who are raped should be able to get an abortion imo That's another part of the problem, when extremism gets involved, it can dissolve the issue into a total ban. > ...do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? That's a good point, as various "Men's rights" have arguably been buried in the U.S. In various countries, an abortion can only happen if the father agrees or can't be found. To include other countries, where if a woman has a child against the will of the father, they allow or are proposing to allow men to renounce or give up their paternity rights or parental responsibility. Which is also kind of like how women are allowed to abandon (safe surrender) or give up a child for adoption, even against the will of the father, in various states and countries.
random-human 4y ago
>People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby. They have never been forced to care for the baby, but will now be forced to birth the baby - that still doesnt mean they will care for it, even if it is in the same home. To the other point, women get pregnant from male sperm, yet it is somehow the female who has been burdened with trying to police this - any male partner/husband can now force a pregnancy though subterfuge leaving the female with little no other option then to carry out his will. Women can have sex all day long, every day of the week with multiple people and they will never get pregnant so long as a male does not ejaculate his sperm inside of her. Yet males are not held accountable for irresponsible ejaculations - maybe they will be monetarily accountable 10+ months later The burden of un/wanted pregnancy falls onto the female, males have a choice to provide comfort and support (emotional, monetary) if they chose, males can still choose to be absent deadbeat parents too - they are not forced to pay, they can chose not to and depending on their lawyer situation can do so and keep their money, or not do so and have to take steps to hide their money. Also, contraceptives fail and males don't have to care because the full physical health burden falls on the female. Like this whole topic, wanting a yes or no on something like this or if males should have to support a child just doesnt do it justice, there are too many ways in which that happens - but if a female has the choice to easily get an abortion without all of the burden, then if a male does not want a child and a female does, he should be free from it - but before that can happen - the female must be able to have the choice to carry it or terminate it without burden.

notch656a 4y ago

Personally, no. Consent can be revoked. Involuntary servitude is a violation of the 13th amendment. IMO a child can be abandoned without any moral guilt, so long as you leave them to their own devices or surrender them to someone else rather than say physically attacking them. I actually find abortion a much trickier subject because there's an eviction involved, and it becomes a trickier subject because some physical force is typically needed to remove the entity.

rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
The only person it is tricky for is the mother, who is the only person in the universe whos opinion matters on abortion, and we must abide by the decisions of the individual. Anything else is absolute horror of biological control and loss of bodily autonomy, and should be rightfully ignored, and anyone that thinks differently needs to think about minding their own business and not making a difficult thing more difficult. Those that use the legal system to enforce their hatred of women? Get off the planet please.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Personally I'm pro-abortion but I think it's trickier than you say. Evicting a living entity, even for people who are pretty progressive, is usually seen as a delicate subject. To me evicting an entity is a lot trickier subject than merely abandoning it, and the points against using force to evict that entity could have merit. Although we are both in agreement that you can safely abandon the life you created without any moral obligation. Personally I see no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth. Neither wrong, but abandoning before birth requires a forceful eviction. >The only person it is tricky for is the mother, who is the only person in the universe whos opinion matters on abortion, and we must abide by the decisions of the individual. I mean to frame it as only involved life as the mother I think is disingenuous. Perhaps the fetus is not viable but it has to be at least considered in this equation, even if only to decide offspring has no rights to compel their parent to keep them alive.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
    Ok good :-) I think my issue is the your idea of eviction, its not eviction, in the same way we don't 'evict' cancer, we 'treat' it. I think its best to leave it at 'no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth.'. Agreed. Lets not make this difficult situation harder for women who have to make very difficult decisions in life.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      IMO the courts did right though here revoking Roe v Wade. For such a tricky subject without enumeration of this right in the constitution, the constitutional basis for determining this would be allowing voters in the various states to decide. In some states they have decided to agree with you. In others they haven't. IMO supreme court did right here, and allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Democracy, if you will. That is, if you play by the rules of finding nations and constitutions to be legitimate :)
      - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
        It would have been nicer to codify the rights before pulling the rug on it.
- tjs8rj 4y ago
  Do you think abortion 10 minutes before birth is fine? Half way out the birth canal? 1 second after birth? Is there ever a time between conception and birth where you’d call it baby murder?
  - rfd4sgmk8u 4y ago
    Yes. Yes. Yes. No. anything else is none of your business.

f38zf5vdt 4y ago

That's fun, but many states are putting the cross hairs on contraception in general. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

endisneigh 4y ago
I agree, that’s an issue. That being said that’s not related directly to this ruling.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  Indeed it is -- the ruling is about the fundamental right to privacy with regards to bodily autonomy. Without some major federal precedent like Roe V. Wade, states are free to impose to their medical will on their populace as they see fit.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    The right to privacy is not related directly contraceptions. Alito said as much in the opinion.
skissane 4y ago
They are targeting specific methods of contraception, which they claim are abortifacient. They have displayed zero signs of wanting to ban contraception in general, as opposed to just specific forms of it. By contrast, the law struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut was an across-the-board ban on all forms of contraception. I think it is unlikely that Griswold will ever be overturned – simply because it is unlikely any state will enact a total contraception ban. To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent. But almost nobody wants such a law now. 1965 (when Griswold was handed down), 1873 (when the law it overturned was enacted) was a very different world – when most Christians still believed that contraception was a sin. Nowadays, the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) accept contraception as moral at least in some cases. And while the Catholic Church teaches artificial contraception is inherently sinful, it displays no signs of any interest in having the government make that sin illegal (unlike the situation with abortion). You might find some crazy Catholic integralist advocating it, but the Bishops and the Vatican aren't going to. The bans on (allegedly) abortifacient contraceptive methods could be challenged, but I expect SCOTUS will uphold them – and the majority will probably just uphold them as state regulation of abortion, not overturning Griswold itself. However, I think a lot of groups are going to refuse to support challenges, on the grounds that they don't want to give this SCOTUS an opportunity to overturn any more precedents they support, rather save it for the day (whenever it may come) when there is a SCOTUS majority more amenable to their views.

runjake 4y ago

> as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) Here’s a good indicator: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/abortion-ruling-gay-rights-contraceptives/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/abortion-ruling-gay-... Spoiler: it looks like contraceptives are likely next for SCOTUS.

endisneigh 4y ago
Is it? > He emphasized a line the majority opinion that said "[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." "We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life,'" Alito said.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  Alito is one Justice -- Thomas stated that "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Sure, but Alito plus the others means it’ll never pass.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Many of the others called Roe v. Wade "settled law" in sworn statements. That didn't stop them from voting to overturn it today.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        Sure, but no state to my knowledge has banned all contraceptives, even though they already could so even in the hypothetical states would make them legal.

autoexec 4y ago

> do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? Why or why not? As for me, I say no. If a woman can terminate the pregnancy. a man should be able to waive his part in it. That still leaves the issue of a man losing a child he wants if she doesn't, but that issue, as well as the issue of abortion, will be solved once we find a way to transplant the fetus to an artificial womb. Until then there are no perfect solutions. > As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? Contraceptives can and do fail. Even if you're doing everything right. Contraceptives help, and comprehensive sex ed promoting the correct use of contraceptives goes a long way to help prevent unwanted pregnancies (as evidenced by higher teen pregnancy rates where they only provide "abstinence only" ignorance) but it doesn't solve the problem. > People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby. "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. needlessly. More women will cruelly suffer. More children will cruelly suffer as well.

endisneigh 4y ago
> "spontaneously" or not, women do in fact get pregnant against their will. They also can get medical complications that require them to terminate willful pregnancies in order to protect their health and their lives. The loss of Roe v Wade means that more women will die. Indeed, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not against abortion. The situations you’ve mentioned are good reasons to have it. My point is that the choice that people want already exists other than rape. Abortion should be legal, but not because reasons, but for medical necessity and for situations in which the choice that a woman does have is made for her (rape).
- autoexec 4y ago
  My feeling is that until a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, it is dependent on the women's body. It feeds off of it. It takes her nutrients, her oxygen, her energy. It alters her body to accommodate itself. Pregnancy is a great and special sacrifice, and it must be one made willingly. At any point, prior to where the fetus could be viable without its mother, the mother should have every right to terminate that pregnancy for literally any reason at all. Anything less would deny women their right to have control of their own bodies and lives. Again, plenty of people end up pregnant against their will. Others will have fully intended to have a child, but their circumstances suddenly changed. It needn't always be due to some medical necessity. As long as the mother's body is needed to sustain the life of the child, that life is subject to her whims. Her house. Her rules. The moment it can be removed and sustained without her, she should no longer have the right to abort it, only to surrender it.

FpUser 4y ago

>"as long as contraception is legal" Contraception can and does fail. >"..as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby" I would refrain from judgement at late stages of pregnancy but early on it is not your business what they do. Mind your own business and do not stick nose where it does not belong. Also if you are so pro life why not to go and right away imprison every official whose action (like sending people to war when not directly attacked) cause death.

endisneigh 4y ago
Why do you believe I’m pro life?
- FpUser 4y ago
  From your original post it seems that only the rape constitutes grounds for abortion. Sounds pretty pro life to me unless I misunderstand the term.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Pro life does not support abortion under any circumstances
tjs8rj 4y ago
If you’re pro choice then you must support pure freedom including citizens owning nukes, children taking heroin, and legalizing stealing from others right? Of course not. Pro choice is doesn’t literally mean “pro choice in all situations”, it’s shorthand for “abortion is a an individual choice and should be protected as such”. Likewise pro life doesn’t mean “save all lives in all situations at all costs”. It’s short hand for “abortion is murdering babies, that’s wrong and should be outlawed like any other murder”.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"abortion is a an individual choice and should be protected as such" This is exact my point of view, not sure what your overall post suppose to mean.

Tozen 4y ago

> As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception? It's not so simple, when it comes to contraception, because various forms are controversial as well (even IUDs) and can also possibly become illegal. In a submission that was posted and flagged for unclear reasons, it refers to an article that discusses some of the complexities and gray areas involved, like abortion pills or women being accused of murder because they had a stillbirth under "suspicious circumstances" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-goi...). It might be worth a read, to see how various women can be looking at this issue, from a practical standpoint. > ...women who are raped should be able to get an abortion imo That's another part of the problem, when extremism gets involved, it can dissolve the issue into a total ban. > ...do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child? That's a good point, as various "Men's rights" have arguably been buried in the U.S. In various countries, an abortion can only happen if the father agrees or can't be found. To include other countries, where if a woman has a child against the will of the father, they allow or are proposing to allow men to renounce or give up their paternity rights or parental responsibility. Which is also kind of like how women are allowed to abandon (safe surrender) or give up a child for adoption, even against the will of the father, in various states and countries.

random-human 4y ago

>People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby. They have never been forced to care for the baby, but will now be forced to birth the baby - that still doesnt mean they will care for it, even if it is in the same home. To the other point, women get pregnant from male sperm, yet it is somehow the female who has been burdened with trying to police this - any male partner/husband can now force a pregnancy though subterfuge leaving the female with little no other option then to carry out his will. Women can have sex all day long, every day of the week with multiple people and they will never get pregnant so long as a male does not ejaculate his sperm inside of her. Yet males are not held accountable for irresponsible ejaculations - maybe they will be monetarily accountable 10+ months later The burden of un/wanted pregnancy falls onto the female, males have a choice to provide comfort and support (emotional, monetary) if they chose, males can still choose to be absent deadbeat parents too - they are not forced to pay, they can chose not to and depending on their lawyer situation can do so and keep their money, or not do so and have to take steps to hide their money. Also, contraceptives fail and males don't have to care because the full physical health burden falls on the female. Like this whole topic, wanting a yes or no on something like this or if males should have to support a child just doesnt do it justice, there are too many ways in which that happens - but if a female has the choice to easily get an abortion without all of the burden, then if a male does not want a child and a female does, he should be free from it - but before that can happen - the female must be able to have the choice to carry it or terminate it without burden.