Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's a lot to unpack here. I don't think that the male half of the population is routinely seen as 'breeders,' that's a new one for me.

Yes, you run a risk when you have sex with someone that can get pregnant and yes, that risk does not take into account your financial situation.

None of that has to do with access to abortion for the impregnator. They don't get abortions.

Yeah, I don't want my taxes going to that either. I don't really understand your point - one wrong thing exists and so we must allow other preventable wrongs to occur? Why? How about we both don't allow parents to financially abandon their children and we stop bombing brown kids?



Your entire argument is an attempt to spin something that is widely seen as necessary, that is, access to abortion, into a side discussion about your personal dislike for not paying for your kids. Aside from being a pretty awful parallel to make, giving people access to only having the kids they want lowers the chance of them financially abandoning them.


I believe you have wildly misunderstood my entire argument.

I was attempting to respond to something I have seen argued many times by men, including the literal comment I replied to here, which I paraphrase as 'if a woman gets to abort then a man should also get a say and so should be able to financially abort.'

I disagree with this, a woman should be able to get an abortion but a man should not 'in the interest of fairness' get a right to financially abrogate their responsibility. It's not a man's right to choose.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: