Its funny how they tell men if you dont like the consequences of sex to keep it in your pants but if tell women if they dont like the consequences of sex, keep your legs crossed. They somehow view that as crossing a line.
What's actually funny is that you and Boddhi can't address the simple biological realities that have been set out before you by conscientious posters in this thread.
The reality - once again for the dumb, deaf and blind - is that when women are pregnant, they get two choices. They can abort or keep it. If they abort, well, it's done. If they keep it, then it needs to be supported. The government has a vested interest in the safety and wellbeing of children, even if it's often inadequate. Nonetheless, financial support has to come from somewhere... and it primarily comes from the two parents.
Saying that a man should opt out because a woman can have an abortion isn't reality. The legal and social consequences don't play out the same way, as has already been explained to you.
What's happening here, essentially, is that men are complaining that women can get out of it but they can't, and they are coming at it from an anti-feminist point of view... i.e. look at how many rights women have earned, yet men have none?
But it's not about rights, it's about biology.
Men need to be extra careful where they put their sperm because once a pregnancy happens, they don't have control. I mean, they can ask the woman to get an abortion, but she doesn't have to.
This doesn't make her manipulative, despite misogynist suggestions to the contrary in this thread.
Honestly, every time this topic comes up when Boddhi posts it, it never looks like anything more than men just trying to shirk responsibility. I'm not seeing any real arguments of consequence that would justify men getting an opt out.
Yes, women AND men should both close their legs, but accidental pregnancies happen, and when they do, men will naturally have less choice than women. You can't create an affirmative law that gives men an artificial "abort" option because they don't carry the pregnancy, and doing so would be coercing women to get abortions, which is unethical.
I dunno... this argument keeps going in circles and the male entitlement is really intense. Fortunately, the government doesn't care what MRAs think and they are a minority in their grievances. I would much rather talk about family court reform because that's really what this topic is about.
Parents can't opt out of financially supporting children they create. That's wrong. It will always be wrong. Children deserve care. You can't create life and totally wash your hands of it.
Jeeze, is there no sense of honor left in the 21st century?