If impregnating men were held legally responsible for unwanted pregnancies and criminally charged if they were terminated, none of these abortion ban laws would ever have been passed.

@georgetakei

How could a man be criminally charged for an act he didnt do? As for the man being financially responsible, that would only be fair if the woman didnt have a right to forfit the child for adoption either. Not sure that would help if im being honest.

@freemo @georgetakei but the man was partly responsible for putting the baby there in the first place.

If you’re part of a gang that robs a bank, and your only job is to drive the getaway vehicle, you’re still liable for the robbery.

@LexiGirl

Yup as was the woman, so both should have equal responsibility. That means if the woman has the right to forgit the baby and not take care of it (such as giving it up for adoption) the man should have equal right.

@georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei similarly, if they BOTH wish to terminate the pregnancy, currently only the WOMAN would/could face charges.

@LexiGirl

Correct because right now the man gets no authority. Even when abortion was legal a man had no say if they didnt want their child aborted (not saying this is a wrong legal thing, just that it is fact). If what the man wants has no effect on the outcome then neither should thepenalty.

Are you suggesting that a woman should only be allowed to have an abortion if the man approves?

@georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei where did I say that?? If a man isn’t willing to accept that the woman has ultimate control over her own body, then the solution is simple- he should abstain.

@freemo @georgetakei read what I said - if they BOTH want the pregnancy to end, why is the woman the only only to face charges? he can impregbabt, drive the woman to the abortion clinic and pick her up but he faces no consequences?