We all know that since the Roe v Wade decision woman have had the right to choose in the United States. As it stands now women have the choice whether to reproduce or not. Men however do not have any say in the matter at all. While I feel that men should not be allowed to force a woman to either have an abortion or not have an abortion, I do feel that men should have free choice as well. I think that men should be allowed a "legal abortion," a one time choice, irrevocable, wherein they say they do not want to be a parent, and if the women in question chooses to have the child, she is on her own completely and can expect no support of any kind.


Question To Debate:

Should men, when informed of involvement in an unwanted pregnancy, have the legal right to irrevocably and permanently legally opt out?

It's difficult for me to see how this is going to work. For one thing, the vast majority of men want children at some time, or at least consider it a future possibility. So, the "one time choice, irrevocable" would only apply to those few men who never want to be fathers. For them, what the heck is wrong with a vasectomy? It's fairly simple surgery, and it's extremely effective.

I certainly favor responsible sexual activity, and I very strongly favor use of birth control. However, we all know that this fails sometimes. Instead of getting the law involved, a man should make it very clear to a woman that, if an unwanted pregancy occurs, he will not take responsibility for it. The woman can then either tell him to take a hike, or accept the risk. In return, the man should be willing to leave without resentment.

I know I am expecting people to be rational about sexual activity, which is a pipe dream.

I believe you misunderstand me. By one time irrevocable, I mean for this child. There is no changing of the mind later and worming their way back into the child's life. Not you only get one chance to do this.



The problem is the law does not agree with this. We also know, and at least 3 of my friends have had this happen, women lie about being sterile or on birth control in order to trap men as well. That should be a criminal act in my opinion.

If a man does not want to have a child, he should wear protection. He should take responsibility for his actions and not trust... that whoever he is having sex with is protecting the both of them.

I do agree with you when you said that, men do not have any say in the matter at all. Unfortunately the courts give woman total control once they are pregnant. The man means absolutely nothing. Even if a woman is married and she aborts, there is nothing her husband can do.



As long as abortion gives the woman total control, my answer would be yes.

The courts say the blob, the thing, the zygote is totally the mothers. Control is in her ballpark. Therefore in my eyes, that eliminates the man altogether.
He wouldn’t have to opt out of anything, because the courts don't see him as anything.

The woman should have to tote the load, and lift the bale..........on this one.
She should have no right legally to go after him even if she wants child support






And how do you plan to prove this one?


As it has been suggested already, if you’re a man and you don’t want children, then get a vasectomy. The procedure is nothing. So what your legs are in stirrups for a few minutes.


If you want children down the line, and are that nervous about a pregnancy then, wear something. The woman shouldn’t take the entire blame.

This is more than a little disingenuous. Men have no say at all in whether to reproduce? None, Vandeervecken?

Both men and women have choices in whether to reproduce. Females have one option more is all. Both can decide not to have sex. Both can be responsible for birth control with/in their own bodies.



I think this would be a great social experiment. Here's how I'd like for it to go:

1) Men gain the ability to knock up as many women as he pleases and terminate responsibility to any or all of them with the flick of the wrist.

2) When enough women realize that any sexual activity that they have might result in a child that they will have to take care of all by themselves with no legal recourse (and this can happen with and without birth control), eventually they will stop having sex except for reproductive purposes only. That means a male will get laid maybe two, three times in his entire lifetime.

3) Men realize pretty quickly what a stupid idea it was to think that being able to sign a contract terminating all responsibility for their offspring is because that is absolutely not the equivalent of going through a surgery to prevent oneself from becoming a parent, and finally freakin accept the fact that the women get the ultimate say so because it's their body and their lives at risk with a pregnancy.

Of course, that will never happen. Women will never start having sex for reproductive purposes only because that's simply not how it has evolved. Given the attitude many guys seem to have towards females today, and reinforced by the prevalance of males on this board who seem to really believe in the unfairness of females being allowed access to abortions, all "legalized male abortions" will lead to is a sharp increase in heartbreaks and dysfunctional relationships. Not to mention the impact on the already difficult dating scene. Geez, I can't even imagine the number of guys who will simply say "where's my papers?" when informed that someone they had sex with is pregnant.

How many guys out there, seriously, will stick by their woman and support/raise their child when they don't have to?

Should men, when informed of involvement in an unwanted pregnancy, have the legal right to irrevocably and permanently legally opt out?

Hah, well I guess I've already answered the question just addressing your opening. To get my opinion out more concisely, I don't think they should, but if they were granted that right I don't think it would be entirely unjustified... but I would really, really hate for it to happen.

So guys get to knock up whoever they want with no ramifications at all, but the pregnant women have to either 1) get an abortion (not a pleasant or pshycologically easy procedure, I am told) 2) give birth and give the kid up for adoption (a heartbreaking choice indeed) or 3) raise the child with no help from the dad at all or 4) do whatever is necessary to induce the dad not to abandon his child.

How is this different from almost any period from our most brutal past, except that abortion is now safer and easier to obtain? Such a law would surely increase the demand for abortions by a significant degree.

IMO If a guy resents the fact that women "hold all the cards" in an accidental pregnancy situation, he should by God make sure that he only has sex with women he knows to be responsible and trustworthy. If that means he has to go without it for a while, well then gosh, I guess he has to go without it for a while. C'est la vie.

I prefer "Only have unprotected sex with a woman you'd be willing to marry" to "No condom? No problem! And to hell with the consequences!"

God I feel old

Why allow women the right to abortion then? What the heck is wrong with getting their ovaries removed if they do not want children? Two words: double standard.

Should men, when informed of involvement in an unwanted pregnancy, have the legal right to irrevocably and permanently legally opt out?

At first the idea sounds crazy and I was going to argue against it, but why not have this? I couldn't think of a good reason. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. One time only though. It's basically a get out of jail free card.


Well this would equal the playing field to a degree.

I think that the amount of shot gun weddings would plummet after this law. The I'm on the pill/whoops scenario that has ensnared men by the thousands would be essentially eradicated. This wouldn't be a 'no condom, no problem' situation either as you only get to opt out once. As has been pointed out, even with precautions a pregnancy can still occur.

Beautifully said Robert B!



Under what kind of theory would this be fair? It takes both a man and a woman to make an unwanted pregnancy. Women never get to "opt out", but men get the one time chance? I don't think so.

Men already have significantly less obligations when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy compared with women-- why should we give them even less. Maybe someone could explain how this is possibly "fair" in any sense of the word?

It's "fair" in the sense that men also get a "right to choose". If there is a pregnancy and the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, the woman is not legally obligated in any way to have the child or pay child support. The point is that a woman can opt out through abortion. If the situation is reversed, the man is obligated. There is no system protecting him at all. Is that fair?

JLMA-- it is true that the woman has "control" over the ultimate decision. However, that is because it is the woman who has the physical burden of the pregnancy. And although, both parties have a financial burden (pay for the abortion or raise the kid), there is no corresponding physical burden on the man. The lack of physical burden is offset by the fact that the man takes a different burden in the whole mess: the loss of control over the ultimate decision.

I see your point, but then again simply washing your hands of an unwanted pregnacy and walking away is not the same as having to deal with it as part of your body, so that's not fair either.

Since it's not fair either way, we have to use a different standard than what is strictly "fair".

So how about criteria like: what is best for the kid? and what encourages responsible sexual behavior?

EDITED to add Wow it looks like hayleyanne and I are on the same page on this one. What are the chances?

I'll admit that I'm playing devil's advocate to a small degree here as there would be many issues that would need resolving with this idea. How do you monitor this? How much does that cost? How long does the man have to opt out? What if the man is informed about the child after the child is born?

I agree that the physical aspect is a significant burden on the woman. That is why the man only gets to do this once though. With the woman that is not the case.

What encourages responsible sexual behavior? That is a very important question. The use of pregnancy to try and trap the man is one of the worst forms of sexual irresponsibility. Currently, if a woman wants a child - why would she adopt? Isn't it better to sucker some poor sap into getting her pregnant so that she can enjoy the financial benefits? This law would eliminate her having her cake and eating it too.

I could answer this in a single word... however, one-liners are against the rules.


No. Men who are, forgive me men, stupid enough to partake in unprotected sex at anytime during the females ovulation period... or anytime at all for that matter, should bear the full weight of fatherhood. Just because men do not have to carry a baby for nine odd months does not entitle them to jump ship. Should women be able to swear off parenthood to the child and shunt it to the father? The key factor of this debate is whether or not a person can live up to their mistakes- I am not calling a child a mistake by any means, however the way in which it would be conceived during this debate- and give the child the best it can get.

No child should be without a father, and how well would it feel knowing daddy could legally abandon it and mommy. It is a persons duty to take care of their children, no matter what the situation. Unprotected and unmarried or not, it was their fault to not insure a child would not become of their urges. The byproduct of those urges must be attended to, you cannot condemn the child for existing.

This again,

Well my position hasn't changed.

Question for clarification:

Does a woman know she is the one who carries the baby, before having sex??

I can only say it is unfair if a woman does not know such prior to, it doesn't make since that it isn't "fair" that she have this burden.

Now the question is about choice. Abortion is not used for the most part due to the fact that a woman is endangered, or that she was raped. It is used as a form of birth control. She is not ready for a baby.

Well, newsflash, men aren't ready for babies either in many cases.

At this point someone is typing "Well tell him to keep his thing in his pants" Which is fine with me as long as this same person is consistent enough to tell her "She needs to keep her legs closed" But if this debate lasts long enough the hypocrisy will surely get so deep, I'll have to get an oxygen mask or something.

Hayleyanne


The man doesn't want control over the woman's ultimate decision he wants control over his own decision. There is a difference. She can have an abortion, she can give the baby up, she can raise the baby... The man doesn't want any control over that. He want to be empowered enough to make the same decision a woman makes, which is.... Do I want to raise, physically, emotionally, or financially a child for the next eighteen years. His choice would in no way effect her ability to make hers.



What obligation is there less of. Is a woman required to raise a child to 18 against her will in this society. No she is not. Can you say the same of a man?? Our society forces men to be responsible, while allowing women to have options. If one party is forced to do something, while another party is told "you do it if you want to" only the mind influenced with great bias would see the latter as have more obligation


Robert


I'm not sure what your position is about women having abortions. But as a society we have supported the use of abortion as a means of correcting "mistakes"
Now, if you do support a woman's right to choose, why not hold her to the same standard of a man.

It seems that what is being said is "If a woman makes a mistake we should give them "options", if a man makes a mistake... well, a man should know better than to make mistakes. Would you agree with this assessment??

So, you are fine with the idea that women can then use becoming pregnant as a tool to trap a man into a lifetime of fiscal responsibility...usually preceded with lies about birth control and/or ability to become pregnant (as JLMA has pointed out)? Granted, using protection could resolve this...but that's an awfully big price to pay for essentially being coerced into an action. It would seem that some remedy for this situation would be justified...although, as another life is at stake, I'm not really sure what the appropriate solution would be.



Hayleyanne, I would have to contest the fairness of this. The physical burden on the woman is offset by the financial responsibility essentially going to the man. One lasts 9 months, the other roughly 25 years. I don't think you can simply dismiss that fact...although that seems to be the way the law currently looks at it. Women have the ability to opt out of their burden, men do not. Not only is this unfair, but it creates the situation described above, providing an incentive for women to become pregnant to get the financial benefits of doing so. While I certainly recognize the issue of men running out on their financial responsiblities in these situations...one of the reasons this happens is because men have no control over the situation. So, correcting this should also help solve that problem, as well.

Should men, when informed of involvement in an unwanted pregnancy, have the legal right to irrevocably and permanently legally opt out?
No. The "it's not fair!" defense just doesn't get any traction. Men don't abandon women because they know she can have an abortion (I despise that quote). They abandon them because of a fundamental lack of individual responsibility that plagues our current civilization.

Women get one more chance to recover from a mistake, big deal. Frankly, I'd consider this discussion more provocative if men were more willing to "opt-in" to a pregnancy. Maybe, just maybe, she would be less likely to consider an abortion if she knew the man would help raise the child, even if it weren't in the guise of marriage? Sexual responsibility is required by both sides. Abdication of that responsibility by 2 people means the woman has the choice of what to do about it. Biology isn't always just. When men have the ability to carry a child to term, then they can complain about equal footing in this equation. If you don't like it, either don't have sex with women you wouldn't consider raising a child with or stop trying to tango and appreciate the fact that dancing with yourself will never result in that question being asked.


The level of coercion I find suspect here. If a man is dumb enough to buy the line "its ok baby, I have protection" then he gets what he deserves. Its a simple equation, caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. The man has all the choice in the world, "before" she gets pregnant.


Isn't this a bit of a slight to the woman raising the child? Its not just 9 months. Which is more burdensome? I suppose its a matter of perspective. I'm not discounting the scenario of a woman lying to get a man to father a child then trap him for support. I have no doubt it happens, but its existence doesn't justify the ability for men to completely abdicate responsibility for their actions, either.

Doc

edit: missed Hobbes reply

Yes. If men are not willing to pay the price and live up to their actions would it not serve their best interests (physical, mental, fiscal) to not put themselves in a situation where they were at risk? The appropriate solution would be to accept what is. Men cannot simply bow down to their sexual impatience and expect not to conceive a child; it is the point of sex to reproduce... just kind of a common knowledge thing.

If the woman lied that does not justify the man being able to leave her and the child. All actions yield consequences. Don't like the consequences? Don't take part in the action.

Hobbes, on what are you basing your assertion that: "the physical burden on the woman is offset by the financial responsibility essentially going to the man" ? A woman has not only the physical burden of carrying the child and giving birth to the child (or aborting), she has 1/2 the financial responsibility and moreover, she usually has the more demanding responsibility in these types of situations of actually raising the child for 18 years.

Also, we are starting from the point at which the child has been conceived. There is no "opt out" point for a woman once the child is conceived. She has to deal with it: abort, raise it alone, track down the guy etc etc. This proposal does not even up the playing field at all. It simply takes away the burden the man shoulders once a child is conceived (albeit in only one instance). Women can never opt out of their burden in any instance. You can argue that the man's burden over all is greater i.e. that having no choice in the matter is the greatest burden of all. But I think that is not a persuasive argument as in reality, even when a woman chooses to have a child (against the man's wishes) it is she that shoulders the greatest burden both financially and as it affects her life. Remember, if a woman chooses to have that child, in this kind of circumstance, she is still the one who is going to do the hard work of raising it. And that kind of responsibility is a thousand times more than the one the man would bear in paying his portion of child support.

Should men, when informed of involvement in an unwanted pregnancy, have the legal right to irrevocably and permanently legally opt out?

This is really a child support issue more than an abortion issue. The only way they are related is that the exact same rationale allowing women to opt out of motherhood after conception would allow men to opt out of fatherhood after conception. I am against both, but if the law is to be applied equitably regardless of gender, then Roe v. Wade must be construed to assert a man's right to opt out of fatherhood. One more reason why Roe will soon be marginalized if not overturned.

Should men opt out of fatherhood by opting out of sex? Sure. But so should women. If we are going to say that women can terminate their parental responsibilities after conception, then if we truly believe in the rationale supporting that point of view, we have to allow men to terminate their parental responsibilities after conception, quite independently of what decision the woman makes.

I find debate surrounding this issue very interesting, because the pro-choice group usually begins to show its true colors by using the same arguments against so-called "male abortion" which they declare absurd or chauvinist when used against real abortion. It is difficult for a pro-choicer to argue against opting out of fatherhood without admitting that they believe men should be held responsible for the parenting consequences of pregnancy, and women should not. It has nothing to do with gender equality and everything to do with feminist supremacy.

So, my point of view on this is that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." No one should have the right to kill a fetus without due process of law-- but as long as one gender has the right to choose to terminate parental responsibility after pregnancy, so must the other.

On, well, reality. While the underlying assumption is that the financial burden is split, this is not the reality of how it works out. The man usually ends up paying almost all of the actual support of the child. The woman, as you state, frequently ends up taking care of most of the other responsibilities (often of her own volition, taking great pains to exclude the man from this process). The actual costs of raising a child are usually less than what child support provides...which is what creates the incentive for women to become pregnant solely for financial purposes.


Aborting is 'opting out', isn't it? It eliminates the physical burden that has been mentioned throughout this thread as the 'justification' for women having the sole control over the process.



So, essentially you are fine with men being intentionally scammed in this manner, and the fact that this creates an incentive for exactly this type of thing to continue? I do understand your viewpoint...but society views other similar activities as illegal, even though the victims certainly have means available to protect themselves. Why the exception here? Not that abortion is necessarily the solution. Personally, I think that any woman who lies to get into this situation has already demonstrated that they are an unfit parent...why provide control over the situation, or custody, to such a person? Ditto for women who use the child in controlling the custody relationship...doing so is certainly indicating complete unfitness as a parent, and should result in revocation of parental rights. Yes, this goes for all the men who fail to take proper responsibility for their actions as well. This failing is well documented, though....it is the other side of the coin that doesn't seem to get any recognition, and is far more common than many people think (and is what leads to threads such as this one).

Take this quote and change "men" to "women" and "women" to "men". That argument does not hold water.

Let's see:


The role reversal shows that we do not condemn women to their fate if they are irresponsible. It is not something I like. I wish we could take your role reversed quote and apply it. I wish women did need to take responsibility for their actions.

The fact of the matter is, they don't. They have options.

All that being said, I do not advocate giving men a "get out of jail free" card. They should take responsibility for their shared actions. My stance is that women should face the same responsibility.

Amlord

Got to love your consistency



Of course it is! But this is part of the word game. A woman is taking care of her "responsibilities" by having an abortion...

No they are not. A man who wants to abort having a responsibility to another person for the next 18 to 25 years of his life and a woman who aborts a child or gives it up for adoption, wishes the same thing. If a woman has an abortion she is not dealing with a child... if a women gives up her child she is not dealing with a child. Prior to birth and raising of a child, a woman is only dealing with pregnancy.

Now if a man's responsibility to the child starts at conception, then a woman's responsibility toward a child starts at the same time, which means abortion, for certain, and maybe adoption should not be availible options for women.

So essentially you're fine with men sleeping around, having unprotected sex and then bailing on the children they helped create? How do you "scam" someone in this manner? Was his genitalia attached at the time? Did he have the option of wearing a condom (something completely within his OWN power)? Yes occassionally condoms fails (as do IUDs, the pill, the patch etc...) but personally I've grown sick of the male attitude that they should be able to do as they please without any responsibility when in fact they ALSO have it within their power to keep unintended pregnancies from occurring.

You're right Hobbes, the reality is more often than not the financial burden ISN'T equal. In my personal experience most of the men I see aren't paying a thin dime to help raise their children. As for excluding men, some woman do that, I've seen that as well and it's wrong and that needs to be addressed but I've seen many more men who actively avoid any contact with their children. Broken promises, forgotten birthdays, under-the-table employment/changing jobs once the Friend of the court catches up to them...As for the financial gains to be had for getting pregnant and "trapping a man"...Well if that were true, single mothers and children would not be the fastest growing segment living in poverty, would they? Once upon a time it may have been true that "some" woman had kids to leech welfare benefits but once welfare reform kicked in, the incentive was GONE for such behavior in most states.



Men have no say in the matter???? I beg to differ, men most certainly DO have options. They have the option to not have unprotected sex and stop relying soley on women for reproductive protection. In an age of AIDS and STD's there is no excuse for men to not be using condoms, none . Personally I don't see how your proposal is different than the world we already live in when it get's down to it. I don't have enough hands to count all the women I know raising children alone in this country and I'm not talking single mothers. I'm talking divorced women who aren't receiving child support from their ex-husbands. It may sound rude but I think men in this country need to grow up. They want to have sex, place the burden of contraception entirely on women and than whine that they have to take on part of the financial responsibility for the children they helped create (even though a good many don't pay a dime for them)? How on Earth is that remotely fair? You don't want children? WEAR A CONDOM , or don't sleep around. As long as women carry the children for 9 months, give birth to them, have to either give them up for adoption or shoulder all (or half of the financial burden) AND raise them alone then the decision should be theirs, not yours.

Hobbes, you are making some pretty big assumptions there and I think they are flawed ones to boot. First, the situation in this hypo is about giving a man the option of essentially severing any tie to the child that is produced. Presumably, a man in this scenario is not going to be trying to get shared custody. At least it is not likely. So, we are talking about someone who, if the woman chooses to have the child, will be financially responsible for a portion of the support of the child. So any concerns about the woman taking sole custody (against the man's wishes) are not very realistic. Second, (and I am shocked at this) you assume that the man usually winds up footing most of the actual costs associated with raising the child. On what do you base this assertion? Most child support payments are pitifully low. Moreover, if we calculate the economic cost to the woman of being primarily responsible for the child, the paltry child support payment the man makes would likely not even come close to covering day care costs, let alone compensation in economic terms for the mom's care of the child 24/7. There is no economic incentive to the woman to become pregnant.




How is aborting "opting out"? It may be "opting out" when it comes to raising the child-- but once a woman is pregnant, there is no wiping clean the slate. Like I said, she has to deal with it. Which means, even if she chooses to abort, that she has to suffer through the pregnancy itself (for a time) and then suffer through the abortion itself. There is no corresponding burden on the man, in physical terms. Arguably, the corresponding burden to him is the loss of control in the situation. Quid pro quo. Both sides have a burden for not acting responsibly.

May??? How about it is opting out.



The whole point is people have abortions so they do not have to deal with pregnancy. By pregnancy I don't mean.... conception. I mean heavy milk filled jugs, maternity clothes, big round bellies, stretch marks, aching backs and ankles, and peanut butter and pickle sandwiches!!




Like Hobbes said how are you going to compare 9 months to 18 to 25 years?

How about a reasonable quid pro quo compromise. Since the woman has all of the physical burden of terminating a pregnancy... Upon the man signing this paper work of telling a woman that he does not wish to become a father, he should have to pay the monetary cost for the abortion procedure. Now she retains her options and he is burdened with the financial needs for the termination of the fetus.

Now all of you can stop saying the male is getting off "free"

Does this seem reasonable?? One has all the physical burden, the other has all the financial burden, both have options to handle a mistake.

Droop wrote regarding "abortion":




Right. Opting out of raising the kid. She cannot under any circumstances opt out of the pregnancy and having to deal with it.




Droop-- believe it or not, there is a whole lot more to it than just that. Most women feel the worst effects of pregnancy in the first trimester. Trust me, I have been there and done that. The last two trimesters (aching backs and all) are nothing compared to the horrible (at least for me) morning sickness that you go through in the first few months. In any case, the point is that the pregnancy itself is difficult no matter the length of it. Moreover, the abortion procedure is no cake walk either, don't forget that. Abortion lets you terminate the pregnancy, but it doesn't let you escape all the other stuff.



And your point is what? The woman doesn't experience the 9 months (or whatever period of time she is pregnant) in lieu of the 18 to 25 years of raising the child (and where the heck do we come up with 25??). She too is responsible for raising the kid-- and arguably a thousand times more so, as she is likely "on" 24/7, while the man's responsibility pretty much amounts to writing a check once a month.

The only relevant comparison with the "quid pro quo" is the physical burden of the pregnancy (on the woman) versus the lack of control that the man has in the ultimate decision.




You must be joking Droop. Like I said to Hobbes, you are failing to calculate the economic value of the woman's work in singlehandedly raising the kid and being their for him or her 24/7. The man's child support check doesn't come close to covering these costs.

Should men, when informed of involvement in an unwanted pregnancy, have the legal right to irrevocably and permanently legally opt out?

Since the fetus is part of the woman's body, the decision to carry to term must be hers alone. Anything else would be intolerably invasive. In this sense, the fetus belongs to the woman.

Nor should a man have the right to sever his parental obligations without the consent of the woman.

A man should have, and does have, the right to offer compensation in return for termination of pregnancy. The full cost of an abortion, of course, considerably exceeds the mere medical expense of having one. So the man wishing to end his obligations in this way may expect to have to pay a fairly considerable sum. Terminating pregnancy sacrifices the opportunity to deliver, so the necessary compensation might be prohibitive if the woman wanted to deliver the child.

My limited understanding of the law is that, in most places, there is no contract into which a man and woman can enter by which (1) the pregnancy is carried to term and (2) the man has no further obligations. But this may be unimportant, since very few women would be willing to enter into such a contract without compensation essentially equivalent to the man's normal contribution to raising the child.

I will note in parenthesis that in cases where the man wishes eventual delivery and the woman does not, the man should have, and does have, the right to offer compensation in exchange for that. Thus it is never the case that the man has no influence in the matter. It is only that having impregnated the woman, he has necessarily entangled his interests with hers.

Lin, I'm sure you are aware (but are choosing to ignore) the fact that all these arguments could be made for the women, as well (unless genatalia removal is something new in the females of the species). Where in here have I ever said anything about condoning the male attitude about lack of responsibility? For the record, no, I am not fine with that. However, in the situations I have laid out, that's not the case, is it?



You need to keep better company, then

It mainly applies to situations where the man has significant income...I'm not talking about welfare benefits, here.

.

Again, why would you not claim the same advice should not apply to the females as well? How is the option to not have unprotected sex unavailable to them?



I think you should reexamine child support laws in most states. They are onerous, and for anyone at upper middle income or above, generally higher than actual costs of raising/caring for a child, particularly once out of daycare. However, the other point you make is quite valid, in that women frequently handle the full burden of child rearing. I have no issue with these cases....I am against the specific circumstances in which the women has the child, primarily for financial reasons, after lying to the man about birth control/pregnancy feasibility, and then also frequently tries to remove all custody from the father. Granted, this is far from the majority of cases--but I am certain it is a higher number than most people think, as well. Is it a big enough number to justify the actions suggested here? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem that should be addressed. Unless anyone here really thinks its ok for women to lie their way into having a child primarily for financial gain?

I try to interject in abortion debates only when matters of fact rather than opinion are in question.

This is such a matter.

A fetus is not part of its mother's body. That is a simple fact.

It is a biologically separate (though dependant) organism. Mother do not share the same genetic map and may not even share the same bloodtype making any direct contact between the two dangerous without specialized mechanisms to allow this at the umbilical cord.

EXACTLY Hobbes, thanks for making my point for me aka...She was there, He was there two, so apparently they're both responsibly for the unwanted pregnancy, yet what I hear from you is complaining about "trapping a man, he's gotta bear more than half the financial burden etc..." You don't have to "say" you condone it, your words give a very clear impression of victimhood on the part of men...Let me be clear here on what I'm saying to you The situation you "laid out" can not occur if a man is protecting himself sexually can it? None of these arguments about "man trapping for money" can occur with regularity if the man in question uses a condom. No one has trapped him into have unprotected sex, he did that himself . Yet you want situational responsibility based on this idea?! Sorry...if neither one of them used protection, it is the fault of both .

BTW...are you aware of what the national average is for a woman receiving full child support (and many aren't receiving full support btw...)? It's 4,900 dollar a year...Yep she's living high on the hog on that 4,900 a year.



Apparently so do 60 to 70 percent of single parent mom's then...

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuI...licationID=6471




Neither was I, given that about 70 percent of single moms are working not on welfare, many of them working poor. Another bit of fallacy about soaking the "rich guy" for mondo child support (again from what I've seen firsthand). Rich guys have good lawyers. A divorced friend of mine gets 30 bucks a week (15 bucks per child) in child support. Her ex works in management with the Big 3 clearing 200,000 grand a year, so there again...No gravy train.



I do claim the same advice for woman. I'm not the one claiming situational responsibility for ones own actions, that has been your argument. I was merely pointing out that there is no "victim" here just two people that behaved irresponsibly and often only one held accountable for it. You have to admit that 60 to 70 percent non-payment of child support pretty well testifies to that fact.



I've looked at that myself and I think you have a point to a degree because the system used to calculate child support is not evenly applied or even generally understood by many courts, as well as not taking into account the actually cost of living in individual states but when applied properly, I don't believe it's unfair (at least not for child support for 1 child). The income shares model used to calculate support on average comes out to about $350.00 a month in support for a man grossing 2,000 a month (probably bringing home in net pay about 1,400) and a wife grossing 1,000 a month (bring home pay around 700.00) per month. Mind you that 60 percent of those eligible to receive court ordered support never receive such an order though. So a single man earning 2,000 a month gross can expect to pay out about 350 a month in support under this calculation leaving him with about 1,100 a month to live on. Where as the wife in this calculation is trying to support 2 people on a little over 1,000 a month. So while it's not easy for the guys in this situation, it is by no means a cakewalk for the woman either. She's attempting to support two people on less income than her Ex has to work with to support just himself.

I think when you get to the calculations for more than one child you're getting into a real problem area as I'm not sure what happens to the calculation for 2 or more kids. There needs to be a cutoff point on how much support can be claimed in those cases (I believe). The non-custodial parent needs to have enough money to live on too. Like you, I have seen outrageous child support orders too so I'm not disputing your claim that it happens and it's unfair. I agree it does happen and it is unfair and needs to be addressed every bit as much as people that aren't paying any support. I have no desire to see fathers labeled "deadbeat" because they can't afford to survive on what would be left after paying support. Personally I think this country needs to band together to seek FAIR reforms across the board, not leaving 60 to 70 percent of women receiving nothing and a percentage of men who do pay feeling ripped off and overcharged. The entire system is adversarial and really doesn't serve the interests of anyone involved in it's current form.

The fact of the matter is that this proposal might look fair at first glance, but it is not even close to being fair, in all reality. If a man opts out of parenthood, the woman is stuck with 100% of the burden, the man is stuck with 0%. If a woman gets an abortion she is stuck with 0% of the burden, and the man is also stuck with 0%. They both go back to square one.

The woman is in control of her own body, so is the man. And as soon as men are able to get pregnant, I will support unrestricted abortion rights for them, the same way I do for women.

This analysis is a little misinformed. Male abortion is usually formulated as a man's right to abort paternal rights and responsibilties to a fetus within 30 days of learning of the pregnancy. After 30 days, no option to abort paternal rights and responsibilities. "Male abortion" would not necessarily leave the woman with 100% of the financial burden, it leaves her with the decision of whether or not she is willing to accept 100% of the financial burden-- she still has plenty of time to opt for the 0% route if she so chooses. So, Looms's argument does not really apply to the way most so-called "male abortion" proposals are formulated.

The proposition that men should have the right not to help support their children is certainly absurd-- but no more absurd than the proposition that women should have the right to kill their children before birth rather than support them.

Burden is an interesting word choice. I know several men whose souls are burdened by a wife or girlfriend's decision to kill a fetus the men believed to be a human life. They live every day with the guilt of being an unindicted accomplice in what they believe to be murder. Folks might escape some financial burdens, but a burdened conscience is not so easy to escape.

Yes, "male abortion" an absolutely horrific idea, but it is simply those equal rights flowing from Roe v. Wade. Many feminists claimed to fight for equal rights, but when faced with the logical consequences of equality under the law, suddenly the inconsistent left began backpedalling. They replaced the "equal rights" mantra a decade or so ago with "women's rights" and "reproductive rights"-- which we can safely interpret as nothing less than a full confession that the real agenda is to have special privileges, more power, inequalilty in favor of a political special interest group.

Liberal feminism is not really about choice or equality or even women, and it hasn't been since the sixties. It's about propagandizing Americans to vote Democrat. The fact that the message is illogical, inequitable, unfair, immoral, insensitive, inhumane and completely irrational makes no difference-- so long as the drumbeat is loud enough to mesmerize enough weak-minded people to see themselves as victims and the Democrats as their knights in shining armor, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, or that strange smell rising from the Kool-Aid, or the heartbeat of that fetus in your womb.

The special interest group in this case being what, anybody who thinks a father should stick around and be responsible for his kid?

This whole "male abortion" concept strikes me as a dishonest, vindictive reaction to the legalization of abortion. The mere fact that it's referred to by the misnomer "male abortion" is evidence of the blatant and disingenuous attempt to turn abortion rights on their head. It's equivalent to saying that if we want men to be legally obligated to care for their kids, we'll have to outlaw abortion.

To suggest that having lift a finger to sign a piece of paper is equivalent to subjecting yourself to an invasive and highly stigmatized surgical procedure is absurd.

The fact that the fetus requires the use of the mother's body for ~ nine months means that the conditions are different for the father and the mother. This disparity is also evidenced by the fact that termination of responsibility for the fetus is completely different for the mother and father. So "equality" and "fairness" (as in making the obligations identical) for the mom and dad are not valid arguments in this case.

Denying a man the right to abandon his kids is not the same as denying a woman the right to decide whether she wants to continue to carry a fetus to term.

.

Huh? What do the thirty days have to do with anything? And it does not leave a woman with the option of of "choosing 100% of the financial burden", it leaves her with 100% of EVERY burden. Including the burden of having to undergo a surgical procedure. I can't see any of these things happening to a man if a woman undergoes an abortion.

What I find absurd is the notion that a fetus is a person, and that a woman aborting is killing her child. As well as the cultists' inability to just let people make their own choices.



Okay, now we are getting into the (quite expected) burden of the soul fiasco. Are you honestly saying that people being kept up at night by yucky thoughts is societies problem? What is a burden of the soul, how do you quantify it? What group of "soul burden experts " will determine whose burden is greater, those of the men you just described , or those of women forced into not being able to decide what does or doesn't grow inside their own body, if abortion was illegal? You used the word absurd before. I think it fits quite nicely here.



Wow. Just wow. My political views have been called everything from ultra liberal to ultra conservative, but this is honestly the first time I have been called a leftist feminist Democrat.

Hayleyanne

I actually agree with you, but I think you are not understanding what I was saying. The man should give all the money for an abortion, if he wants to have nothing to do with the baby. Everyone is claiming the the woman has all the physical burden of pregnancy. I agree with this. What I am proposing is that if a man wants to terminate the pregnancy he be required to pay all the cost. Now a woman may not want to terminate the baby, but she now knows the father intentions. She can take the money and abort, or she can take the money and raise the kid or give it up for adoption.

looms


It doesn't look fair, it is fair. It gives both sides... choice. Right now, only one side has choice. Women, may be the only ones who can get pregnant, but they are not the only ones who can see that they are not ready for the responsibilities of a child. Listen carefully what people are saying in this proposal, because it is easy to misconstrue peoples intent, if you do not.

A woman must be responsible enough to inform the male counterpart of her pregnancy. A male must be responsible enough to tell a female his desire to raise a child or not, with a reasonable (two weeks, at least) enough time for the woman to abort. Now, we agree, it is 100% a woman's choice, due to the fact it is 100% her body. But with power and authority, comes responsibility... and it should correspond directly to that level of authority. If a woman has 100% authority on the issue at hand, and she knows the father wants nothing to do with the child... she needs to be 100% responsible for the burden of her choice , because it was her complete decision.

Robert B


I think you are correct that some are saying that. But people who would speak against a "male abortion", but for "female abortion" give people who are being disingenuous a leg to stand on. The mantra is not "Pro-abortion" it is "Pro-Choice. Well, when some one says... "how about giving a man some options... how about giving him some choice, legally, since physically it is impossible" and then you and other turn your back on this idea... it makes the concept "pro-choice" disingenuous, and it does so in a blatant fashion.

And to be honest I don't understand it. I am not for a man laying with a woman, sticking by her side through the pregnancy, and then after the baby is born saying..."you know what... I'd rather not be involved"

Abortions are legal and accessible and that is why my position is the way it is... it is also why I am confounded the lack of support for such a position by people who are "pro-choice" It shows a lack of consistency and egregious amounts of hypocrisy.

Basically what you and others are saying "a man has a choice, don't have sex irresponsibly" This gives the implication that responsibility toward a child starts at the conception of the child. That gives credence to the pro-life point of view. Men don't "run around and impregnate women" anymore then women "lay on their backs and get impregnated". They happen simultaneously. So to whatever degree you find the first disgusting, is the degree you must find the second disgusting. Therefore, if we believe they are both adults(in most cases), we must hold them to the same levels of responsibilities, to breed equality.

Jack22



The left didn't back pedal on this issue, they are just becoming more conservative on this issue and supporting the status quo(abortions only for women). Basically they just made a turn to the right.

OK I figured out a way to make this completely fair.

Bask in my brilliance:

The solution is twofold:

- Once a baby is born, both parents are responsibile for the child (just like now).

- Up until the fetus is in the 2nd or 3rd trimester (whatever the threshold date currently is), neither parent is required to allow the fetus to gestate inside his/her own body.

There. These rules apply equally to both parents. There is no having to balance emotional distress vs. physiological burden vs. monetary contribution. This applies universally to everyone.

What do you think?

I like it... one substitution though, cause I can make it even more fair.



How about this instead

-throughout the pregnancy neither parent can influence in any tangible way the the growth and gestation of the fetus.

This way we get all the balance from above, plus everyone is fully accountable for the choices they make. We let nature do what it does with hands off mentality... nothing could be fairer. Now if a women can figure out a way to mentally abort a baby, that would be considered all good.

Is this not better??

No, because that outlaws abortion for all circumstances. I thought this thread was about a fair solution for fathers and mothers, not about making abortion illegal.

Perhaps you are not understanding the female perspective here? You are boiling this all down to money but you ignore the most central points to this argument...

1.It's not YOUR body. You have no right or business even thinking that you have the right to dictate what occurs outside your own body so long as you "pay for it". Conversely, would you find it an equally acceptable solution to have women dictate what happens to your body (aka...having a vasectomy) as long as they're willing to pay for it? Sounds equatable to me...you both take part in unprotected sex, creating an unwanted pregnancy, you pay for her abortion and she pays for your vasectomy! Problem solved

As for the "now she knows the father intentions/she can take the money to raise the kid or give it up for adoption" idea....Here's my take on that. How about men taking responsibility for their own sexuality instead of making excuses and shifting all the blame and responsibility to the woman. It takes two people to create a child. It takes two people having unprotected sex to create that situation. Why on Earth do you think you (the general form, not you in particular) ought to get a "pass" on that. In the age of AIDS no man should be having sex without using a condom and no woman should let him get away with it. The for men to "decide" these issues is before sex, not after. Like it or not, you aren't the one carrying the child, it's not inside your body and until such time as it is, the decision after a pregnancy has occurred will fall to the person physically carrying the child.



As I've said MANY times, given the realities of who carries the baby, men's "Choice" comes before engaging in sex. It's a simple reality that men seem to not want to grasp. As I mentioned above, would it be equally "fair" in your estimation if women were allowed to dictate what occurs in your body? If men have 2 unintended procreations should women be able to force you to have a vasectomy (if they're willing to pay for it)? These proposals are fantasy based on mens desire to take no real responsibility for whether they create children. If you don't want children, wear a condom, get a vasectomy, don't have sex until marriage. Otherwise you're looking at a situation that after the fact will never be within your control.



Her's a better idea:BOTH are responsible for protecting against unwanted pregnancies before they happen, not after they happen. . After they happen, it's far too late, don't you think? So if you have unprotected sex (knowing full well that you don't want children). YOU should be able to bail on the child and she should be 100 percent responsible for the child YOU helped create and were equally irresponsible in creating? Oh yeah, sounds fair to ME.



What you are advocating amounts to a "women as property" position. You can have unprotected sex (knowing the result could be a child you don't want to support) then after it happens, you get to dictate what happens to her body. I think there's a name for that, it was called slavery and we abolished it.

At least my solution changed something. Your compromise, well, wasn't a compromise... just rewording of of the current inequalities while dealing with this issue.

Let's look at why women have abortions.



Now you talk about fair, what percent of theses reasons would a man like to have an abortion for, too??

Since you said my counter proposal to your proposal would be too exclusive... let's go through the above list and allow men to financially abort, only where women can physically abort.

For instance... if a women can physically abort a baby due to maternal health a man can financially abort a baby due to paternal health. Since only a women can suffer health problems(physical that is) a woman will always have this available and the man will never.

But, if we are going to allow a woman to abort, due to the fact it will disrupt her education or career, we must allow a man to financially abort for the same reasons.

This is how flexible I am on compromises... I am willing to let you pick which abortions we should allow, with only the small requirement that you let a man use the same reasoning for asking to remain, legally, uninvolved.

Is this still not fair??

Droop,
given the fact that 70 percent of unmarried fathers aren't paying a dime in child support and 60 percent of divorced fathers aren't paying a dime in child support either right now, I'd say you already have all those options (and then some). But hey, let's not let the facts of the situation interefer with your desire to further abdicate (via the legal system) any responsibility for your own actions. . Maybe we ought to go with your plan, after all we're technically doing that right now aren't we, we'd just be ratifying what already exists in our society.

No, it isn't fair to me as a tax-payer. The woman's abortion results in no child, thus no expense to me, the unrelated party, to potentially have to pay for that indigent "father aborted" child until it reaches adulthood (or later, for its progeny if it's a male and decides to "father abort" as well).

Lin731


You must not be reading what I am writing, or else you would not be making these statements. But I will say it again, and even place it in bold print. I do not think a man should control a woman's body

It does not boil down to money, but choice and equality. Choice at equal times throughout the pregnancy.

And just to show how skewed your ideas of fairness are.. the equivalent of a man getting snipped would be a women getting her tubes tied. Which is irrelevant because I never thought a man should have the ability to forcibly, legally or physically, make a woman have a abortion.



How about you hold women to the same standard. She had unprotected sex, now have the baby.



Good, allow it to remain so. I never asked for anything different. In all instances, the decision on whether or not an abortion should or should not happen, should be solely up to the woman. I hope you read that this time.



O.K. I grasp what you are saying. Now, let's see if you can grasp this.

A woman does not have the natural ability to consciously abort her child. It is done by a procedure. The reason why the abortion stands as it does today is due to laws and regulation of our society. These laws and regulations that have given women the right to physically abort their child, can just as easily give men the right to abort their child by have nothing to do with the raising. Add to this, there is already precedent for people within this country to legally give up their parental rights with no financial burdens through uses of contracts and law.



Again, you quote me, but do not read what I said. I did not say he could bail. In fact, read what I said in that post again.