Why shouldn't men have more reproductive rights?

It is clearly the responsibility of both parents, especially since the woman will be financially at a disadvantage through having a child and therefore it is the mans responsibility to compensate for that, whether he likes it or not.

It's best for society to have kids growing up with the financial support they need.

Yes, 'clearly'. Since you're no longer engaging with my points whatsoever, I have to assume you have no rebuttal for them.

If a woman would be at a financial disadvantage, that is a factor for her to take into consideration when deciding whether to keep the child. Her decision, her responsibility.

Sterilisation or acceptance of the risk. Deal with it like every other adult man does.

News flash everyone: he's updated his options to 'celibacy, sterilisation or deal with it'. I guess that's problem solved!

These arguments are a pro-lifer's gold mine.

News flash everyone: he's updated his options to 'celibacy, sterilisation or deal with it'. I guess that's problem solved!

These arguments are a pro-lifer's gold mine.

That's not exactly fair when the man is in a position where he can go off and have as many kids as he wants whereas the women may never get the opportunity again and has to make huge sacrifices in her life in order to support the child.

And it is problem solved as that's what the law states. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Is it fair that a guy should have to shell out about £80k simply because someone he had sex with wants a child really, really badly?

I think it's entirely fair that women should bear the consequences of their decisions. Fairness does not mean always getting what you want.

Child support is income dependent so yes it is fair.

Fairness means compensating for the fact women got the ****ty end of the deal biology wise and have far more limited options when it comes to choosing when and where to have kids.

They can bloody well have kids, just don't drag an unwilling sperm donor into it!

So your solution is celibacy. Brilliant.

They were willing as soon as they had sex and ****ed up

Every action in life has various outcomes that could occur. One of the potential outcomes from sex is a baby. The only way to avoid this outcome is not to have sex. You cannot have everything - you can't do things and then ignore the consequences. Nobody is saying you should never have sex, only that if you choose to, you have to do so under the assumption that you MAY end up with a baby.

Ultimately, reproduction is what sex is for. If you choose to do it for pleasure that's up to you. But it would be selfish to then not accept the consequences when everyone knows that it is the biological and historical aim of sex to have babies.

If the law stated that women had no right to abortion, would you be happy to accept that women take on the risk to carry a child to full term whenever they have sex?

Don't you realise how ridiculous this argument sounds?

They can bloody well have kids, just don't drag an unwilling sperm donor into it!

Women do have the choice and that's right as that is exorcising body autonomy and a physical/hormonal change to their body-whether she chooses to have the baby or not.What you're wanting is the choice to be absconded from financial burden because "you don't want to pay". There's no physical hardship you go through.

Right, so it is legitimate to stop a baby being born because you don't want the physical hardship, but it isn't legitimate to refuse to give that baby money on the basis that you don't want the financial hardship?

What's the logic here?