How much input should the father have in deciding on abortion?

Zero role in the actual decision, but as much role as they want in terms of advice and support leading to how the decision goes.

At the end of the day, if a man could force a woman to carry a baby to term, that would not only restrict her liberty but also cause endangerment of her life and person, as well as all the long term consequences of having had a baby.

It's kind of analogous to saying that a tattoo artist has as much right as the person with the tattoo to decide whether they can get it removed or not. Actually it's not them who is affected by the tattoo and similarly it's not the man who has to carry the baby.

In theory, I like it! But it's too impractical. How could one go about proving that she informed the man of the pregnancy before the cut off date?

Film it or something. In this day and age there are so many ways.

Why would a woman, when in a perfectly happy relationship at the time, film her announcing the pregnancy to her partner?

No I'm relying on recorded messaging services that log the date of all conversations, it's already used in many legal battles? For example WhatsApp messages were used in the Pistorious case

Because she would want proof of her telling the father that she is pregnant with his child.

But who would have the hindsight to do that? You can be perfectly happy in a relationship, trying for a baby for months. Why would you think 'ooh I better film this to provide evidence that my partner acknowledges my pregnancy'.

The only case where I'd say that would be realistic is if you were already broken up/ separated.
Be realistic.

Why should the man not be able to back out of financial obligations is he has said from week 1 (as soon as the pregnancy is found out about) that he doesn't want it, when if it was the other way round the woman could just abort and not have any responsibility? Seems incredibly unfair especially seeing as the option of abortion IS available to all. I'm not going to say that woman will have the child to spite the father, but once the child born the man can be trapped in a scenario where they're ****ed financially for the rest of their life, that just isn't fair. You hear a LOT of stories where the father is literally having to hand over most of their paycheck to the mother who doesn't work leaving themselves living in poverty due to a child they had no say in aborting in the first place. That just isn't right, it's ****ed up

So a woman should be allowed to back out of her motherly responsibilities (aborting the baby, giving it up after its born) but a father shouldn't be able to back out of his?

I could easily set up a WhatsApp conversation with my "partner" discussing the pregnancy. It'll be easy to set up another account, and use your partners picture as the DM. Yes WhatsApp messages were used, but they would never stand alone in this case. Too flimsy.

Because you can't force a woman to undergo a medical procedure and you can't allow a child to suffer hardship when you had a role in creating it. The combination of those two. Why should the state make up the difference?


If no child is born the woman is not backing out of her 'motherly responsibilities'. And why should anyone be obliged to keep caring for an unwanted baby? Perhaps the parents should both still be obliged to pay some amount of maintenance towards an adopted baby though. That's a thought.

None. Zero. Her body, her choice. The father doesn't carry the baby for 9 months or go through labour. You can't force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want

No you can't and at no point have i said you can? If the mother cannot pay for the child it should be out up for adoptive care, the father shouldn't be held at ransom.

And yes the woman is getting out of her motherly duties by aborting in the same way a man would be in not paying financial repercussions don't try to wiggle out of that please, you can't have it both ways

What possible reason do you have for preferring that a baby be carried to term and then put up for adoption?
Do you have any idea how many children there already are in need of adoptive/foster families? Why would you choose to make that situation worse?
In what way is any man 'held at ransom' by expecting him to pay towards the upkeep of a child he had a 50% role in creating? He can **** off and never play 'father' if he doesn't want to. That doesn't mean he can get out of paying and thus cause the child to be financially disadvantaged.
What duties does a woman have to a foetus?
If a child is born and the woman keeps it, she is forced to support it financially. Why should a man be able to wash his hands of that burden? If a woman aborts, no child is born - meaning both the woman and the man are saved a financial burden.

the man and woman take the necessary steps to avoid pregnancy (through birth control and barriers). Despite reducing the chances, the woman still gets pregnant. The woman has the choice to abort it and waive any responsibility of having a child. The man is happy with this as he wants no financial responsibility for the child. The woman changes her mind but the man still maintains his position of not wanting to have financial input. It's not fair at all on the man then because he essentially has no rights here. Yes, the woman has the right to keep or not keep the child and it's solely down to her, but this should apply to men not wanting to give his input to the kid too. What if the man isn't in a good position financially anyways and the woman knows this, but still decides to force him to pay for him / her?

Leinad's idea is good tbh.

I am personally okay with abortion, if the circumstances make it necessary, but as a male I'd hate to have my own child aborted without me agreeing, yet it seems many people that are pro-abortion claim that it is the woman's decision only as it is her body.
(P.S this excludes rape, obviously the father then should be in prison, and have no input whatsoever)