As states, such as S.D., try to overturn current abortion laws, the fate of
women's rights is a growing concern. The Supreme Court, which is currently
eight men and one woman, could potentially be given the ultimate say over
women's abortion rights.

Should men, including those working in any of the three branches of
government, continue to have power in deciding the fate of this controversial
issue?

-or-


Should women be given complete and total control in adjudicating, legislating
and the overall decision-making that surrounds the issue of abortion?

Let me say first of all that I consider myself a feminist, and a moderate on the very difficult issue of abortion. With that in mind, let me try to explain why I feel that it would be a very bad idea to exclude men from playing a part in the way society deals with abortion.

It is a mistake to exclude citizens from voicing an opinion on issues which do not directly effect them. (A case could be made that abortion effects men, at least to some extent, but for right now let's assume that abortion laws only effect women.) Such a stance has been used, in the past, in attempts to prevent women from having a voice in the political process. (Why should they worry their pretty little heads about war and other male things?) Obviously, this attitude leads directly to discrimination.

Of course, it is true that only women can have abortions, which makes this an issue which has few, if any analogies. Let's imagine for a moment that the government was considering a bill to provide funding into prostate cancer research. Should only men be allowed to express an opinion on this subject? I would say not.

I very much dislike the fact that men have the vast majority of political power in this nation. The solution to that problem is to give women more power, not to exclude men from power.

I might also mention a couple of practical difficulties with this suggestion. First of all, there would seem to be no legal way to exclude men from having some degree of control over this issue. Secondly, we must not forget that there are many men who are pro-choice (as there are many women who are pro-life.) Why would we want to take the chance of locking out potential allies?

Sure, providing that they are all from S.D., Kansas, Utah, or rural areas about anywhere else...

That would pretty well determine the fate of Roe.


If the original premise is expanded on, it would only follow that child rapists are best judged by pedophiles. I think it's plain to see where that would lead...

Thats just plain silly. I have seen a lot of attempts to create bad slippery slopes here on AD, but I mean seriously...


ANYways, while I agree there are a bunch of practical issues preventing it, and there ARE some precidents set, reasonable ones, not like Yogurts, what I think this proposal DOES do is make a very good thinking point.

Currently abortion laws are decided on by legislatures and judiciary composed vastly of men. While it is reasonable to object to the above proposal because it eliminates men from the decision making capacity, is it not equally unreasonable to decide on the nature and power of a woman over her own body with a group largely of old white men?


We have a situation in the US now where a majority of the people clearly want abortion legal. A gallup poll from less than a month ago showed that 66% of the population was gainst overturning RvW, and only 25% for.

The same poll done nationwide showed that 37% of the population would favour stricter abortion laws, while 60% would prefer the same as now or even less strict abortion laws.


That said, polls have shown that between the genders, the difference is only about 3%, with women being slightly more inclined towards legalisation. (This surprised me, to be honest) With the gender gap much lower than I and I suspect many people predicted, it takes away a lot of the incentive for the issue. If women favour liberal abortion laws only 3% more than the national average, which is already solidly for liberal abortion laws, then it doesn't make much difference.

If the decision was for liposuction, or otherwise limited to her own body and not involving another human, then we have no disagreement. But that other human is entitled to the protections of the law.




It's easy to find other polls and interpretations:
snip
Reason

snip Penraker Poll Data

These polls, as with any, always depend on how the question is asked.

Should men, including those working in any of the three branches of
government, continue to have power in deciding the fate of this controversial
issue?

-or-


Should women be given complete and total control in adjudicating, legislating
and the overall decision-making that surrounds the issue of abortion?


Abortion is an issue that affects both genders--admittedly, men less than women. But just as it is not fair or reasonable to expect women to bow out of the argument, we can't expect men not to have any say. After all, they are (less than) half the process.

It seems to me what needs to happen is that we need more women on the political/legal side of this so as to more accurately represent all sides of the issue. This is happening, just more slowly than we would like.

Except that there is no other human life involved, except in your personal opinion.

And once again we come full argumentative circle.




No, not really. The source you cited states the same thing I just said:



Find me a poll which says a majority of Americans want abortions banned, or that a majority of Americans want Roe v Wade overturned.

No luck?

In this case the only 'other interpretations' are people who look at the polls, don't like the results, and choose to ignore them.


Now of course there is nothing inherently wrong with being in the minority, those who wanted to desegregate schools were in the minority. But this is an entirely moral decision, with no absolute right answer. The rest of the first world (save Eire) has decided that a woman's right to hr own body is a more real and tangible right than the right of a clump of cells, REGARDLESS of what potential that lump of cells has to become.

In the case of a moral decision of this nature, I think the voice of the majority says a lot.

If you think women are the only ones directly affected by abortion and should therefore have absolute and sole political and legal authority over the issue, then the same logic would place all decisions regarding war and the military in the hands of the military.

Makes sense to me...

=Should men, including those working in any of the three branches of
government, continue to have power in deciding the fate of this controversial
issue?

-or-

Should women be given complete and total control in adjudicating, legislating
and the overall decision-making that surrounds the issue of abortion?

Since the abortion issue doesn't effect me, I don't feel any need for men like myself to have the final word on this issue. Also, the Government has enough trouble regulating other moral issues such as drugs and prostitution. The Government should stick to the clear black and white issues. If Government wants women to carry unplanned pregnancies through, then Government should make it easier to raise children. Coercion will not work on controversial issues.

I have changed my opinion thanks to previous debates here on that yes men including men in the three branches of the government should continue to have the power in deciding the fate of this issue.

Simply put, I have found that too many women have no problems with laws forcig men into fatherhood. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with laws that would force a woman into motherhood. It's karma baby

So let men decide or participate in the legislative process, up until the point only women control the legislative/judicial body. They've got a right to vote... start a campaign... vote woman

Thanks for making my point
My point was it's all in how the questions are written and who is interpreting them. As you did, it's natural to look for data that supports our own point of view. If you look within the data you'll also see:



That tends to show that support for unrestricted "abortion rights" starts to evaporate when given options.

In regards to Roe vs Wade there are probably as may people in the US who think it has to do with trout fishing methodologies than really understand the implications of it.

If the question were to be framed: (and I think arguably factually correct)
"Do you support the ability of the Supreme Court to impose tyheir own Federal 'super-laws', with no strict constitutional foundation, usurping the rights of the States under the guise of 'privacy'?"

I think the results are predictable. Even many of my Libertarian friends might be disinclined to support such a statement.

Again, I have a question to respond to your question.

Don't women have a say in who becomes a justice or a judge? In fact, don't women vote more than men? And aren't more women graduating from college now than men?

The implication is that there is some good ol' boys network, when in fact it may just be that women sitting right next to you DON'T THINK THE SAME WAY AS YOU!

We had a debate in high school about abortion and the most heated discussion was between me and a girl who was against abortion.

I'm not sure where this comes from. If women wanted an all-women court, they could just vote for a female president who would guarantee women on the court. After all, women have the numbers. You can only assume that many women prefer the situation as it is today. In fact, I know women that would prefer men decide such issues.

So indirectly, women are deciding these issues. There's no need to change anything.

Should men, including those working in any of the three branches of
government, continue to have power in deciding the fate of this controversial
issue?

Men should have a say in this matter. Our government is today, the government of the people and not of men. If it fails to adequately represent the issues of women there will likely be political fallout from this in the long run. I do not think that government should have the final say on this issue but I am in favor of regulation of the process to ensure that individuals who opt for abortion are sure they are making the decision they want to and giving the matter serious thought.

I also think that the father in these situations should at the very least be notified and have some ability to have his case hear.

But pregnancy is a dangerous thing. Compelling women to go to term with a fetus that cannot exist without her nurturing body is not something I want my government or society doing to women.


Should women be given complete and total control in adjudicating, legislating
and the overall decision-making that surrounds the issue of abortion?

Women should not be given all women court systems and legislative bodies for this specific issue if that is what is being asked. I think women should have the final say in this matter. But I have no problem with laws that allow for delay the process in order to help ensure that a rash or hasty decision is not being made.

At the end of the day, though, the woman should be in charge of the decision. Not the government and not anyone else.

I guess it takes a man to help a woman think "seriously" about this issue?



I disagree and here's why. The man in the scenario should have his case
heard before he impregnates a woman. He should perhaps be more selective
and less impulsive. Men want power on this issue. Why don't they seize power
before there is a pregnancy.



The pregnancy and the delivery are the easy part, by comparison. It's what
occurs after the baby exits the birth canal that is difficult. Anyone who has
kids understands this. I wonder how many of the posters who are vehemently
opposed to women having a choice over their bodies and their lives even have
kids.

Men in politics have usurped the issue of abortion and demonized women
while doing so. I do not want someone who can never and will never be
physically faced with this issue deciding its fate.



If women get the final say then why delay their ability to choose? Do you really
think in the majority of cases where women had abortions there was a man
standing in the wings trying to talk her out of it? That's absurd. Men need to
start behaving like men and maybe abortion won't run so rampant.



Not at the end of the day. At the dawn of the day, and every hour in between.

In 1985, a good friend of mine got pregnant. The father -- a guy she had a casual relationship with -- was vehemently opposed to abortion and let her know it in no uncertain terms. He refused to pay for the abortion, so she paid for it herself. I only knew about this situation because I was the friend who drove her to the clinic.

This guy had no intention of marrying my friend, so as far as I was concerned, his "pro-life" stance had everything to do with vanity and nothing to do with responsibility. He would not have been affected in any practical way with caring for the child unless she'd dragged him into court over it, something she was not willing to do.

The pregnancy was partly her fault, for fooling around with a guy who had no real intentions to marry her and whom she probably wouldn't have married anyway. But I think this situation and others like it are why so many women are strongly opposed to letting men have a say about abortion. It's all very well and good to revere life, but if you're not going to take responsibility for the life you create, your argument is hollow.

I believe that abortion can be the lesser of two evils. The option of relinquishing a child for adoption is not the easy thing many pro-life groups present it to be. It is a wrenching decision that can backfire years later when people start 'looking' for each other. And it is definitely evil to bring a child into a relationship or family where it will be anything less than cherished and welcomed.

The only real way to prevent abortion is for people to only do the deed with partners they really love and are willing to be parents with if it comes to that, and to use birth control and cross their fingers. That may not seem like a realistic goal, but it's something to reach for.

I do not like either choice presented, one being the premise that a majority of the male citizens make the decision or the other choice having a majority of the female citizens make the decision. This should be an individual's choice as to their own health and their own life and no one else should have control over that. As women are the only sex to become pregnant, a woman should have the total decision.

This should be one of the issues addressed in series of constitution amendments concerning privacy and the protection of it.

Vermillion:

Uhh, weren't you Mr. Evolutionist on that other thread? So then you know that organism exists only for purposes of reproduction [every thing else is "mere" intrigue], yes? I mean, according to you, I have a thumb because it was selected for, which means that my thumb allows me to produce viable offspring who will in turn produce viable offspring who will in turn produce viable offspring, and so on and so on, so what's this nonsense about no human life? It's not opinion, it's science. And beyond the oraganism exists only for reproduction, what are we reproducing? Our DNA. Not that of some monkey, some salamander, or some orchid, but human DNA. You'll have to forgive me, but of all people, I would have expected you to get that point.

To the rest:

That being said, while I understand that as a man I will never be in anywhere near the same position as a woman with respect to this matter, but, as Vibiana noted, there is the matter of child support. And if you aren't willing to give him a say on whether you have the child, then you are hard pressed to justify why he should be expected to pay for the care and nurture of that child. Sorry, but we are men. And not financiers of your female reproductive decisions. And the irony is rather rich and cruel. Every reason that a woman gives, excepting the decision to preserve her life and/or health, can be given by a man as reason for compelling a woman to have an abortion.

And even worse, there's this thing in the law called "voluntary reduction of income," so, you were working for a company and earning 50K a year, but management changed, the company's sliding down hill, but more importantly, these new cretins treat you and the rest like dirt. So, you change your job to get some peace of mind and otherwise ensure that you're not the last one on the ship when it sinks. Sorry, but we call that a voluntary reduction of income and so you're going to have to pay child support as if you were earning the 50K at your old job and not the 44K that you are now earning at your new one.

All of which is to say that if your slogan is My Body, My Choice, then please understand that it is also His Body, His Choice. So maybe you retain the right to an abortion, while he gets vested with a right to disclaim the child that you, and not he, wants. Seems only fair to me.

The hypocrisy here is otherwise rather alarming. You're a 12 year old boy, you get statutorily raped, too bad for you, you pay child support. You actually use a condom, and for oral, and not vaginal, sex, and she then takes the semen from the condom and inserts the same into her vagina without your permission, well, you pay child support. And she knows she's pregnant, doesn't tell you until nine (9) years later, and then sues you and asks for not only current and prospective child support, but past child support as well.

Let me leave you with Cathy Young:

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/...oice/print.html

And here is the error, and even Cathy makes it:

"It is not necessarily a sign of anti-male bias, as men's advocates contend, that a man's ability to control his income and his labor isn't accorded the same respect as a woman's ability to control her body. In our culture, bodily autonomy is seen as a more fundamental value than property; that's why chopping off an offender's finger seems to us far more barbaric than stiff financial penalties or even forced labor."

What do you use to labor? Your body? So call it another instance of the "unfounded polarity", since if you do not control your labor, then you do not control your body.

The topic of this thread has nothing to do with child support. You've ranted
quite a bit about I'm not sure what. Maybe you should have posted on your
own personal blog because I'm not seeing how anything you've written
comes close to what this thread is discussing.



"We are men." Who are you talking about?




I can guarantee you if you get a girl pregnant and you don't want to pay child
support there are plenty of ways that you can fly under the radar and leave
mother and child to fend for themselves. It happens ALL THE TIME. Men
are "figuratively aborting" their kids every time they walk away from parenthood.

Women don't have that luxury. When pregnancy occurs they have to make a
choice, with or without a man's help. So why on earth should men decide
what the parameters of this issue should be? They should focus less on controlling women and more on controlling themselves.

Well, the fact is that for most law abiding citizens, especially in the State of TX, it's really tough to get away from paying child support which can be as high as 20%. Sure, there are dead beat dads, but it's not like statistics on fathers that do the right thing are pubished. I'm sure it's far more common than you think. People in a relatively comfortable tax bracket could pay a chunk of change, and funny enough not even be able to claim the child on taxes. Consider this, if the parents aren't married and child rearing is a 50/50 responsibility, financial support should be as well.

I think that this conversation is pertinent to abortion debate.

So, following that line of thinking, if a man in Texas makes $85,000/year he would have to pay a little over $1400/month regardless of the cost of rearing the child. This is in addition to whatever he/she may spend during visitation.

I personally don't have children, but do have a close friend in this predicament. The father also incurs costs paying for things the mother won't; such as school clothes, summer camps, etc in order to be a good "father". However, the state also requires the check to be cut monthly for child support. (this is in addition to him saving for the child's college, etc)

So, does it cost $2800/month to rear a school age child? Of course not. That $1400 basically leaves the mother out of the woods. Furthermore, it pays for the mother's car note on a brand new BMW... while he drives an old Chevy truck (which there's nothing wrong with... I drive one!) so that he can keep a house w/ a yard for her, etc. However, the point is that adding the 2nd bedroom to her luxury apartment cost her roughly $400 extra/mo, feeding a 7 year old may cost a couple hundred/month, & health insurance is ironically carried by the father (because his is better and he's a good dad). This leaves things like school clothes, prescriptions, etc. We all know that the law isn't even remotely just in these cases... However, going back to court; in order to hire a lawyer to reopen the child support case would be expensive and drag the poor child through more hardship than they deserve. She's an admin and makes about $30K/year, but garners an additional $17K+/year in child support. The child goes to public schools, is clothed often by her father, stays two weekends/month at his house, and many "incidentals" are paid by the father. Why should the mother's livelihood be augmented financially by her child's father?

We all know that in many cases, unless there is compelling evidence, mother's garner custody. Also, it's nearly impossible to have a custody hearing without causing distress on the innocent child.

Ok, so what about someone that makes less money? What if someone makes $40K? That child support costs $666/mo. This is more reasonable, but really when you consider that the father can't deduct expenses from this amount it's not necessarily fair (of course case dependant).

There are no paternal provisions if a father were to choose to keep a child and take responsibility for raising the child. If there was, I believe that it would be really rough to take the mother to court and sue for child support.

This thread isn't about anecdotes or dead beat fathers, but is about constitutional law as Roe v Wade set the tone for this debate. The law strictly manages fathers in many cases, but mothers often have the capacity to keep/abort children with wanton abandonment in the eyes of the law. I think that if a mother can abort a fetus without paternal consent, men should be able to legally abort a baby in terms of fiscal responsibility. It's really just a matter of convenience for most mothers, so why does the law only extend this luxury to one side of the equation?

Why do so many men believe support of a child is it’s most great financially? Why do you always focus on the money? Is that what this world means to you...your money? A real daddy knows better.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of child support laws, they are a meant for the government to make you have to accept your financial responsibility for a child you produced, because as a male you have NONE. So as a modern progressive society should we just accept the laws of nature? Or should we strive for something more?

Who else should have to financially care for it? The state? All of us because you think it is “unfair”? We have the same laws to guide parents in the other, and I would argue more important, aspects of supporting a child, such as schooling, care, health, nourishment etc.

You think a mother would get away with just refusing to feed a baby? Or what if she felt her support in minding the child was “unfair” and she just chose to neglect the baby...how lenient to you think the government would be to her case? You think you have it all bad and unfair and some great burden being asked to shell out a few bucks, but women have a lot more responsibility and society gives them absolutely no forgiveness, none. It isn’t fair, was never meant to be. The laws in our society try to make some sort of balance out of the completely imbalanced.

If your children have a right to your money when your dead why do they not have any rights to it when you are alive?

And here’s a plan I think now for every abuse and neglect case that they find the child living or in the care of one parent that if the other parent does in fact have custody or parental rights that they too should be responsible for the abuse or neglect.

You chose to leave a baby with a financially, mentally or physically unstable person then you are responsible for what happens to that child.

We have better laws to protect animals from neglect or abandonment than we do for children. Shame on all the men here who feel their burden is too great, because it is far far too little.

Many men don’t pay their required child support and I can assure you that if as many women decided to not care for their children as the law demands of them that they somehow wouldn’t be allowed to walk about free and I doubt anyone would advocate their “cause” and I am sure saying they never wanted the child anyways wouldn’t validate their actions.

Where does "pick the right partner" come into this? Do people have no responsibility for choosing the father or mother of their children with some care and caution? I find it amazing that someone can make a baby with someone and then decide they hate their guts.

If you don't want to end up fighting over child support, then keep it in your pants, guys. And if you don't want to end up begging for child support, then keep your legs crossed, ladies. It's not rocket science. Your fighting and scrapping over money poisons the lives of innocent children.

Because that's where the gov't focuses all of its police powers. I live in a county with a population approaching 2million people. The DA's Child Support Enforcement Division has over 100 people working for it, a $10mil annual budget. In contrast, there are a whole two police officers tasked as "additional duties" to address matters of visitation. So, clearly, the gov't doesn't give a hoot about "being a real daddy", only about being a checkbook.

Frankly, the amazing ability of radical individualists to atomize parental issues surrounding children while often calling for holistic approaches in other matters astounds me. Abortion, the subject of this thread, is utterly isolated from related subjects such as father's rights and children's rights. A pro-choice advocate will, with a straight face, argue that an abortion is a legitimate choice because bringing a child into a bad situation would be wrong, and then the same person will turn around and argue that no-fault divorce should continue even with the reams of evidence that children from broken homes fare worse. In both cases, the interests of the child are completely irrelavent.

Using the logic of the thread question, only non-custodial parents should have any say in what child support should be. As a legal matter, the child is nothing more than an economic parasite upon the non-custodial parent. That is a harsh and ugly way of looking at it, just as harsh and ugly as the pro-choice argument that an unborn baby is merely a parasite. The child in both cases has no legal responsibility, contributes nothing to the relationship, and has no say in what happens.

Allow the interests of the child to have standing where abortion is concerned, whether the child is male or female.

Some will argue "its not a child, its a fetus," to which I ask, when was the last time a pregnant woman said "ooh, the fetus just kicked"?

Leaving aside your compliete misunderstanding of the basic functioning of evolution for the moment, what on EARTH does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

No, an organism does not exist only for the purpose of reporoduction, but yes that is among its primary purposes. Please, PLEASE tell mw what link any of that has at ALL with the issue of when a zygote should be covered by the law and given full human status, or change the fact that a Majority of Americans oppose the overturning of RvW?




Well, actually we are combining DNA with another to produce unique offspring. And thats what is eventually produced assuming the zygote matures and is carried full term, a unique human offspring.

So what? I am seriously struggling to try and find what point or link between these two issues you are struggling to make here...




Thank you for perpetuating this idiotic and logically absurd fallacy that the point of child support is to punish the man.

The point of child support is to provide for a birthed and growing child. Period.

Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand (again) but though the standard situation is woman gets custody and man pays support, that is the typical situation, not a legal framework. In cases where the man gets custody, the woman has to pay support as well, assuming she has an income. All to provide for the child.

I was discussing this at lunch today and determined that I am sick of hearing women say that it is their body and they can do with it as they please. Now, this is my personal belief and is tainted by personal experience and made worse by my many liberal friends: that a fetus is a life and a concerns both mother and father.

I once knew a woman so determined to have an abortion that she would not even listen to her own words. Growing up, this woman told me that it took two to tango. When she got pregnant and decided to abort the baby, she lost that ideal. Suddenly, it was a personal issue and the father's actions and voice disappeared. When women tell men that it is unfair for them to have a say I would challenge that it would be unfair for women to make a one hundred percent decision concerning fifty percent of the man.

Women do carry the baby, granted. I appreciate and accept that reality. Yet, women also conceive with a man's help. Men should have equal say because it's the man fault that the woman is pregnant in the first place! I can understand the need for an abortion if birth would endanger the life of the woman.

doomed planet:

The question was, at least in part, should women be the sole persons to decide matters relating to abortion. The response to that, at least in part, is that the woman's choice affects the man. I didn't speak in terms other than money because I assumed that for that man wanting the woman to give birth, that the emotional pain experienced by the man would be self-evident. I also assumed that also self-evident is the undeniable reality that the man makes for half of the child's genetic contribution. Perhaps I was mistaken in making my assumptions re the self-evident, but I had hoped that I wouldn't be. But to the extent that your choice has a financial impact on me, kind of hard for you to say that I should have no say in the matter. Unless, of course, I have been dehumanized to the point that all I am is a paycheck that you should receive a short time after the 5th and 20th of every month.

And before he impregnates the woman? Are you saying that if he does have such a conversation and has the woman's agreement reduced to a notarized writing that you would be in favor of enforcement of the same in a court of law? Is that what you are saying?

All I will otherwise say is that the, before impregnates, is a two-way street, and maybe we simply ought to hold that if you voluntary consented to vaginal sexual relations with a man not known to be sterile, that you have given your implied consent to have the child, if any, resulting from the sexual liason, at least if the man insists. Sounds reasonable to me. And, yes, I would be all in favor of court ordered support, and from both if need be.

And just so you know, every study ever undertaken has shown that the more time that the man is permitted to spend with the child, the more likely it is that he will pay child support. Which explains why those enjoying joint physical custody are the most likely to pay child support, those enjoying so-called "extensive visitation" the next in line in that regard, those enjoying what someone described and what we here in the land of Aloha once called, Type A visitation, i.e., every other weekend and Wednesdays after school [our public schools end early on Wednesday], are next in line, then there are those fathers whose children have gone into hiding owing to mother's efforts to deny father his visitation, and at the end of the line are those fathers who simply do not want to pay support.

Here is an article for you, by a fellow family law attorney, entitled Child Support At The Crossroads: When The Real World Intrudes Upon Academics And Advocates:

http://www.ancpr.org/ronhenry.htm

And please note:

"Under the new formulation, the parent who "lost" custody was both deprived of the companionship of the child and ordered to pay the other parent for services that the "loser" had historically provided with love and without charge in his or her own home. This unique separation of the rights of custody and the duties of support became a consequence of the "tender years" doctrine that is matched nowhere else in a legal system that has prided itself upon its attention to the principle that the possessor of rights should also bear the burdens and responsibilities associated with those rights. It is this bifurcation of rights and responsibilities that is at the root of the civil disobedience portion of the child support enforcement problem. Current policy makes the simplistic assumption that all noncustodians are "runaway" parents when, in fact, many noncustodians view themselves as "thrown-away" parents who are victims of a court order that assumed children needed only "a custodian and a check."

What has been left out of the equation is our understanding of human nature and, particularly, our understanding that parents support children because of their relationships with those children. We do not have a problem with large numbers of parents who refuse to provide for their children during an intact marriage, yet those same responsible parents become "deadbeats" upon divorce. It is time to examine the role of government policy in the post-divorce behavior of the noncustodial parents. When we say to noncustodial parents that we care nothing about their relationships with their children, that we will offer no protection against the custodial parent's interference with that relationship, and that we will devote government resources only to extracting financial payments, we should not be surprised by the result. Parents support children when they are permitted to be parents; slaves run away.

The link between emotional relationship and financial relationship could not be more plain. The Census Bureau has reported that:

- child support compliance was 90.2% in cases of joint custody;

- child support compliance was 79.1% where access to the child was protected by a visitation order; and

- child support compliance was only 44.5% where neither joint custody nor access were protected by an order."

And by the way, to ask the same question that a woman has asked, if the man does bail on you, just how is the abortion a "liberating" event for the woman? Whether you realize the reality or not, the opposite is true, and so abortion on demand serves to liberate men who want sex without strings, promises, or responsibility. You simply become the after-the-fact accomplice to the same. I mean, hey, why worry about my responsibility as a man, when female you can just go down to the clinic and have things taken care of...which is to say, again, that abortion is not your liberation, but instead, simply more of your continuing exploitation. Or, if you prefer, the male power structure that you apparently so abhor, well, instead of fessing up to the responsibility that some here have spoken of, has instead provided themselves the way out, abortion on demand...and their true genius, if such it can be called, lies in having gotten you and some others to think that their way out has something to do with your liberation as females...

Now, if it ain't the man ain't there to help, but I've got college, I've got work, I've got fun to enjoy, well, then how are you in any way different from that man that you claim is avoiding his responsiblity in this regard? Maybe he's got college, maybe he's got work that the baby will interfere with, maybe he's got his fun to enjoy...

Lastly, men need to start behaving like men? You've made my point above. Which is not to say that some men don't need to exercise the necessary and obligatory responsibility in this regard, but you have used their refusal to justify your very own abdication of responsiblity and so, again, have proved my point re abortion not accomplishing your liberation but your continued enslavement...

Vermillion:

The "other purposes" are simply the product of your deluded mind, at least if atheistic evolutionary biology is correct.

And as regards your:

"Thank you for perpetuating this idiotic and logically absurd fallacy that the point of child support is to punish the man."

pity that such was not what I said. Instead, I was simply saying that if the outcome may have a financial impact on the man, then he ought to either be heard or have a say. You do recall, yes, why we had a revolution in this country? If not, three words TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Sorry to tell you, well not sorry, but that's what one says to be polite, but it is that exact same principle that I was trying to get across. Taxation purportedly benefits us all, yes? I mean, the purpose of the taxation is to provide funds that our government can then expend for our common good, yes? But yet, since taxation has a financial impact on those taxed, it would be nice if our voice was heard with respect to the same. So, again, same principle here, i.e., if the woman's choice may have a financial impact on the man, in all fairness, he at least ought to be heard or have some say.

Vermillion:

By "deluded mind" I wasn't trying to dehumanize or otherwise insult you, I was just trying to get you to see that there is THE biological reality, and then those things that are simply the product of our rather fertile imagination [and to that extent, such are our "delusion"].

And if the thumb doesn't work for you, how about the brain [and mind]? The words of Edward O. Wilson:

"The brain [and the mind] exists because it promotes the survival and multiplication of the genes that direct its assembly."

And you've read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene? He got that from Wilson, who is of the opinion that the preservation of the gene and not the individual is the focus of evolution. Or if you prefer [from his 1975 book Sociobiology]:

"In a Darwinian sense the organism does not live for itself. Its primary function is not even to reproduce other organisms; it reproduces genes, and it serves as their temporary carrier... Samuel Butler's famous aphorism, that the chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg, has been modernized: The organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA."

And, yes, Vermillion, if there is no God, Edward O. Wilson is entirely correct, and everything else we may posit re our existence is simply our delusion. I disagree with him, but that is because I posit the existence of God [well, God and a human spirit].

So are you saying that it is your belief that most abortions occur against
the wishes of men? Let's turn the tables around to a more realistic scenario.
How about the emotional anguish that a woman goes through when she tells
her guy that she's pregnant, and he bolts. Or, she tells him and he says, "How
do you know it's mine?" Or he says, "I'm not ready to be a father." Or,
he goes along with the whole "family idea" until the baby arrives and reality
hits him in a big way.

How about the 14-year-old who is raped and gets pregnant. Or the prostitute
who is HIV positive. Or the woman who has been addicted to heroin for
2 years. Are these pregnancies you'd like to see go to full term? These are
only a few of the scenarios. I wonder if the "fathers-to-be" will fight for
these children?



Well, if you choose a woman with whom you can communicate and trust,
this will never be an issue for you. That's what I meant when I said, "You
have power before the fact," MEN HAVE POWER. From a male perspective,
power is making choices that will not put you in a position where you are
forced to pay for a child you don't want, or you are forced to live with a woman's
decision to terminate a pregnancy.




That sounds ideal. It's too bad we don't live in a perfect world. It's too bad
women will continue to be raped and sexually exploited. If this world was "fair"
none of that would happen either.

I can guarantee you, with 100% accuracy, that you, kivrothatova, will never
be pregnant. There isn't a chance. Men like you, who will never experience
pregnancy under good or horrible terms, should not be deciding the terms of
abortion.

Nice attempt at backpedaling.

The reality is, there is no link whatsoever, at ALL between the two threads. I asked you to explain where any such link could be found, to justify your utterly counter-intuitive point that the two are in any way linked, and you responses with an insulting one liner.

Nice.

If you wish to continue this point, or what you seem to hope will be a point, please explain how in ANY WAY the reality of evolution over creationism is linked to the current debate on exactly when a Zygote can be considered Human, and what legal protection it deserves in modern society.


If you cannot provide any such link, I suggest you back away quietly. Or, I suppose you could throw out another one-lin insult, but the Mods have already spoken to you about that...




Yes. And so what? LINK TO ANY IMAGINABLE RELEVANCE PLEASE.




Yes. And so what? LINK TO ANY IMAGINABLE RELEVANCE PLEASE.





AH, NOW I se the relevance. You don't believe in evolution because you think God made man, and thus you also think God opposes abortion, and you think that gives you the right to impose the practical opinions of your belief system on others. Am I correct?

I may not be, I am stuggling to understand what on earth you are getting at here, given the total disjunction between the two topics you are so desperatly trying to somehow link; the 'God is great' lthought above was just the only thing I could come up with.


Now then, back to something with actual relevance:

VDemosthenes:

Your plan to give the man a say in the issue of abortion is sadly defeated by Math.

This is a binary option, there should only be two people involved in the choice, the man and woman involved. So do we say the woman has 51% of the choice and the man has 49%? Then by all practical means, the woman has 100% of the choice.

SOMEBODY in that duo has to bear majority responsibility for the decision to abort. Given the binary nature of the situation, whoever has majority of the responsibility has absolute responsibility.

So giving a man 'more say', but 'less say than the woman' is exactly the ame as giving the man 'no say at all'. While I agree thats not ideal, the reality is it makes infinitely more sense for the woman to have the 'majority' decision than the man, so despite the valid emotional value of your pleas, the status quo is the only real alternative.

This level of ethics is not very high. If you apply it to other situations you may see why.

If you go trick or treating at the wrong house and eat the candy with the poison in it, it is your fault. You should choose where you go more carefully.

If you marry someone who begins abusing you after you are married, it is your fault. Just put up with it. You missed your chance for fairness once you committed to be married.

You buy a product, it does not work. Too bad. You should have researched that manufacturer more carefully before you buy.

Our society has to be fair at all times. There should never be a time where one's liberty is given away forever to a second party because of a prior choice. Poor decisions are made often. That does not forgive others from abusing one and another without recourse.

-------------

I guess if your premise is that parenthood is the kingdom of the female and men may only participate at the permission of the female, your argument may make some sense. I do agree pregnancy is the kingdom of the female but it is not ethical to extend that same idea to parenting.

I come from the premise that women and men are equal as parents. If anyone comes from this standpoint your argument above is abysmal.

That is exactly why lawyers do so well in America. The idea of personal
accountability is pretty non-existent. That's not to say I disagree with you
entirely, however, I was giving kivrothatavah a very sensible solution to
the unfairness he sees in women having the right to choose.

If you look closely at this issue you will see that women are totally demoralized
and demonized by men. The idea that looms is that women are abortion-hungry
animals who are running to the abortion clinic to spite men, or they're trying to
trap and steal a man's money, by way of pregnancy. It's simply not the way
a rational woman's mind works. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course
there are. But those women would not fall under the category of "rational-
minded." That's why it is important for men to be more responsible about the
choices they make sexually. It's the only fool-proof safeguard against
becoming a victim.



Not at all. My belief is that men and women can co-exist harmoniously and
create beautiful offspring and live happily ever after. I also know that
circumstances arise where women are faced with a choice. I do not want
the criterion for and of that choice to be decided or dictated by men, especially
those at the governmental level.



Equality is an ideal that we all seem to be striving for. But the seed is planted
inside of the woman. That's the biologically biased reality. Therefore, it would
behoove men to take that into consideration before that seed ever makes its
way to fertilization.

I find your argument troubling. First because you assume the power lies with the woman...how so? Having babies weakens us in this society. We become liabilities...
to medical insurance, employers, our careers, our self image, to our physical abilities, to our ability to travel, the amount of time we can work and our all over position in society.

In parenting we are not equal. First and foremost the child is and will always be in the woman's custody. The man is never placed in such a situation, he does have a choice, so the woman has the ultimate responsibility.

It will be her body, her choices of nutrition and care, her ability to physical nourish and care for the baby in utero that will matter most. If she abuses her body then it will effect the child for the rest of it's life and such choices, such as hygiene, nutrition, lifestyles etc. are all conscience decisions you make, very unlike genetic contributions.

Do you believe that if a man chooses to abandon his pregnant mate or unborn child because he has a substance abuse problem, or is unwilling to accept the greater responsibility or financial strain that society would seek to punish him as they would the mother in the same situation? If the mother abuses drugs during pregnancy like the man who is then seen as the child abuser? If the mother gives birth and leaves the baby with no concern for how it will be fed or cared for ..and the man does the same...who do you think society will have far less forgiveness for?

I also think many of you never really carry these beliefs or thoughts of unfairness fully through. Sure you may believe that pregnancy is the "kingdom of the woman" it is more like our biological destiny. But are you willing to admit that poverty and child rearing are our other "kingdoms" too? And is there a correlation?

I am making a differential between pregnancy and the situation once there is a child to raise. Parenting and parenthood is the rearing of that child exclusive of pregnancy in the context I was using the word. Using the term parenthood was not clear due to its multiple meanings. I was depending on context to make the meaning clear which can be insufficient.

I could have written it this way to be more clear:

I guess if your premise is that raising children is the kingdom of the female and men may only participate at the permission of the female, your argument may make some sense. I do agree pregnancy is the kingdom of the female but it is not ethical to extend that same idea to the rearing of children.

I come from the premise that women and men are equal in standing in the ability to raise children. If anyone comes from this standpoint your argument above is abysmal.

Some people believe women have the martyrdom of pregnancy and consequently they should have primary standing with the offspring for life because of it. This thinking is problematic.

By law, women have the power when is comes to parenting. They have the control. To illustrate the situation as it is now picture this hypothetical situation: A women who is not with the father has a child. The child is immediately given to the man upon birth and the woman is ordered to give the man money to raise that child. I would guess you would find this objectionable? Well the opposite of this our current law of the land. Why would it be horrid to treat a mother this way but it is OK to treat fathers that way? Treating fathers this way is the law of the land and it should not stand. This must be changed so parents have equal rights and responsibilities. Why? Because discrimination on the basis of one's sex is a bad thing. Hopefully most of us can agree on that principle.

I do not think anyone but the person who is pregnant should have any determination of that pregnancy. Women have all the rights and responsibilities during a pregnancy and we should not change this. No governmental body exclusively male nor one which is exclusively female should be able to infringe upon a woman and her health or her pregnancy. However, both parents should have equal standing once a child is born. That is not the situation now but it should be.

Pregnancy is a female's kingdom, their biological destiny if you will. I do not agree with you that presently only women experience poverty or only women raise children nor is there any exclusive connection between pregnancy, poverty and raising children.

I do not wish to see anyone, male or female, persecuted due to a pregnancy or the birth of a child. Any inequities in this regard that exists currently in the laws of our land should end. I am not sure which laws or regulations you know of which are causing the discrimination you are concerned with? There are problems in the workplace with employees who become pregnant. I am not sure how, or if, society should regulate this to protect employers and employees. My libertarian leanings say government should stay out of it unless there is a clear reason to do so.

I do not think our society is being harsh enough with parents who agree to have a child and then neglect that child. I do not care if the reason is substance abuse. Neglect is neglect. Women, and men, can have a child, abandon it, then have another child and get government assistance for this second child. Unbelievable. Frankly, both men and women are given too much of a pass on this. I am not aware of any legal sex oriented discrimination in regards to abandoning a child.

I have meandered a bit with this post but I was not quite sure what part of my thinking troubled bucket so I touched base on all the themes I saw in bucket's post.

Doomed Planet


Hmmm so what is your problem with men making laws against abortion??

It seems to me your logic could go the opposite way, correct.

That's why it is important for Women to be more responsible about the
choices they make sexually. It's the only fool-proof safeguard against
becoming pregnant

Do some of you really grasp why women can have abortions?? Because of interpretations of laws. And the lack of laws. Do we understand why a man has to pay child support??? Because of laws.

All it takes to make a level playing field is laws or the removal of laws.

Doomed Planet as of now too many women wants 100% power but cower from the idea of 100% responsibility. The creation of a Zygote (usually) is 50% man/50% woman. However, in a land that allows for abortion, in a land where a woman has 100% control of whether the abortion is to happen or not, can we not agree to the simple logic that a most babies brought into this world is due 100% to the mothers choice.

To me it is not a life thing, or a religious thing, it is simple fairness. WE know men don't carry babies. We know it is a woman's body. But that which is created within her body, the new life is a creation of both man and woman. Now, if a woman would be so bold to say SHE and only SHE shall have a say on whether that life will meet any future potential. If she would assume such absolute power, let her assume assume absolute responsibility.

Because the fact is it no longer "takes two" to make a child. It takes one. In a land where only women have a say on abortion, then only women can make babies. A man can make a zygote or even a fetus, but only a woman can make a child, therefore if a man doesn't want to be a part of it, physically, emotionally, or even, financially he shouldn't have to be. After all, it is not his fault the baby was born, so it is not his responsibility.

But if people can not agree with the above how can they agree with the choice should only be left up to women??

Gray Seal you seem to have missed the main point of my argument. A woman becomes pregnant and then from that day forward the child is in her custody. Physically the child is with the mother. And that is not because of any prior agreement legally or privately between the parents, it is just biology.

You make this wild claim that a woman would likely be pregnant have the baby and the man who wants no involvement with her would stick around. Sorry I think that would be a extreme minority occurence. In fact when I read you little hypothesis I thought...well if they can find the man. Because the man has absolutely no physical attachment to the child and can easily not be there upon birth, all it takes is his own desire, does he or does he not wish to be present in his child’s life. Whereas the mother has no choice and as this whole debate and all the many others have shown she is totally reliant upon a system and desires not her own to make this decision.

So perhaps in this world of gender neutrality you desire we should make things fair. Like I said let's hold the other parent as responsible when the child is abused or neglected. Lets make some legal requirement for the male to be physically present when the child is born and require him to legally have custody and share with the physical burden of caring for a child beyond just the simple act of handing a check over. Would you feel that was more fair?

So when you say....
I am not aware of any legal sex oriented discrimination in regards to abandoning a child.

How can you not be? Again the child is and will always be in the woman’s custody. Men don’t have babies it is that simple. How this little scenario doesn’t “discriminate” towards one sex when it comes to legal requirements and regulations for caring for a child I have no idea, obviously it does.

Again you seem to be under the illusion parenthood in this society represents power, I laughed at this to be honest. I am a parent that is what I do and I receive little or no respect in society, I am considered lazy, unimaginative, sad, and most importantly powerless.



It is called the feminization of poverty.
The incidence of poverty also is higher among households headed by women. Although the poverty rate among these households declined from 49.4 percent in 1959 to 37.2 percent in 1990, they remain far more likely to be poor than other types of households. This higher incidence of poverty, together with the rising share of households headed by women, has led to what researchers call the "feminization of poverty," with an increasing fraction of the poor in female-headed households. Between 1959 and 1990 this fraction rose from 17.8 percent to 37.5 percent.

source

Men legislating abortion will be doing so from the male perspective. Men who
are strongly opposed to abortion have gone so far as to murder people over this
issue. But I have yet to see men, especially those who have political power,
advocate the responsibility of men. Why don't they pass a law that says
men who have casual sex should where condoms, or men who rape women
should be put to death. Those laws might actually help cut down the NEED
for abortions.

But noooooo, the burden falls on the women of this world, like it has for
milleniums. We are blamed for becoming pregnant. We are blamed for
having babies men don't want, and we are blamed for having abortions.
What will make men happy? To be able to fornicate whenever, wherever, and
with whomever they want, INCLUDING rape and incest, without any consequences?

As soon as the men in power start looking at this issue from both sides, which
would include the male component in the issue of abortion, that's when I'll
start listening to what they have to say.



Of course it works both ways, Droop. The only difference is that when women
aren't responsible they end up PREGNANT. Men don't end up pregnant.




Laws are no good unless they are followed and enforced. It's against the law to
rape women and children, yet it still happens. Child support laws? They get
ignored on a widespread basis by men who feel their own needs should supersede those of their offspring.



When men develop wombs and can carry babies we'll talk about fairness.
I would be curious what the male viewpoint would be if indeed men were the ones
who gave birth.



The sad thing about what you have said is that WOMEN are raising their children
with or without men's help. You're talking about fairness here for the man. I
have yet to hear concern about fairness for the child, half of which are little boys
who often grow up without a daddy because of reasons that are nothing more
than selfish.

If your main point is that women are physically the custody of their pregnancy, I agree wholeheartedly. I have been consistent in my multiple posts supporting this. I am confused as to how it could be interpreted that I have missed it?

We do disagree on the subject of your second paragraph. It is NOT a wild claim that men wish to be involved with their children. You opinion of men seems to be pretty low and for one am not desiring of such judgement. We do seem to share the the opinion that men should be involved with the raising of their children. The first step towards that this goal should be to remove the legal barriers. There are some women who will complain men are not involved with child rearing but when a man ask for equal physical custody refuse to cooperate and get the courts to back them up. It is hypocrisy and a bipolar mess of our society to think this way.

It is not hard to find people. With today's DNA test, paternity is easier to determine and far more accurate. We should incorporate such technology into our laws.

Yes, I do agree we should hold parents responsible when a child is abused and neglected. I do agree men should be required to have legal custody and share in the physical burden ("burden" is your word but would not a positive phrase like "responsibility" be more appropriate) to care for a child.

To say today, women have no choice is not true. Women can say if they will have unprotected intercourse. Women have an option of the day-after medication. Women can have abortions. Women can give up custody. Women can deny custody to the father. Women are anything but helpless but are empowered.

You never did answer the question about legal sex oriented discrimination in regards to abandoning a child. Am I correct that none exists?

My experiences as a parent have been different from yours. Even as a discriminated against non-custodial parent I am proud of my children and I am honored to be their parent. I do think they increase my status in the community. What has happened to cause your experience to be so different? I admire people who raise great kids.

I am aware that single parent women statistically are more likely to experience poverty. I was refuting your stating that two similar kingdoms exists. The first is the kingdom of pregnancy. A pregnancy means the person is a women and only women can become pregnant. This is true. You stated a second kingdom exists involving pregnant women, poverty and child rearing. That implys pregnant women will suffer poverty and child rearing and also raising children or suffering poverty means the person is a woman. That second kingdom is false. It is an emotional argument and bad logic. It is improper mixing of separate issues.

My ideas are consistent and all support the idea of keeping government out of a women's pregnancy. Making this into a male government versus a female government decision process is a bad idea, contrary to liberty, and contrary to everyone's personal privacy, personal health, and personal reproduction decisions. A more constructive process would be to include both sexs and come up with a series of amendments to define personal privacy and also to enact a series of laws which fairly, without sex role bias, define parental rights and responsibilities.

Doomed Planet



False. Women and men are on both sides of this issue. Women think abortion should be illegal, as do men. Men believe that a woman should have the right to choose, aas do women. Your statement is completely inaccurate on it's face.



No disrespect, but you almost sound fanatical. Let's take your first criteria for men to advocate the responsibility of men.

1. Laws that make men wear condoms.

DP would you agree with laws that forced women to take a birth control shot as soon as they got their period up to the time they get married. Neither men or women are made to make responsible decisions when it comes to sex. So while men are making men wear condoms, they are not making women take pills or shots or get implants.

2. Laws that make the penalty for rape a death sentence.

That is crazy that is why men or women are legislating such. We don't send people for death if they rob someone, either. We don't send them to jail for beating the crap out of someone and putting them in the hospital. We don't send people to death for attempted murder. We don't EVEN send people to death for killing another person in all cases. Yet, in your mind men don't care because they won't send someone to death for forcibly sticking his penis in a woman's vagina.



So would a woman keeping her legs closed. Oh that right, a woman is allowed to make mistakes with out being responsible for the rest of her life... right???



Again I think your perspective is severly skewed. As far as I know men are in control at every state level Supreme Court and every state level legislative branch. Men are in control of the Presidency, the Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe you haven't heard.... Abortions are LEGAL!!! So maybe you can start seeing many men do see things from both side. Are you prepared to do the same or is your only answer still, "he should have worn a condom... his bad"



It does not go both way at this times.. Women can sshirk the responsiblity of having a child, while a man cannot.



You just took my point way off subject... was that on purpose. WE are not talking about rape. Child support laws are enforced. My father went to jail for a warrant, after I was a grown man, because he owed back child support. men can have their checks garnished. That is enforcement. Look the reason why I was a big time supporter of women having abortions is because we make mistakes. I don't think a woman should be forced to be a mother before she is ready. Maybe she is in school, maybe she is on a carrer path, maybe she has too many kids, maybe it is the wrong guy.

I have never been a supporter of abortion for some superficial reason such as "I'm gonna get fat and have morning sickness" And when women says she should have an abortion, simply because it is her body that is exactly what she is saying.

A society can make so that a man isn't forced to become a father before he is ready as well.



If we kept our brains we'd still be better off than women.



The audacity... the sheer audacity... it is..... hilarious..

We are in a debate about abortion.... A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N and you would call some one out about caring for the child. You would call men selfish. Tell me would you rather have "no daddy" or "no life" The reason why women kill the life inside them is becaus ethey are being selfish... they are thinking of themselves. When should a man start caring.. when the women gets pregnant..... when her stomach gets fat... oh no... we should flip our love switch the moment our baby suck oxygen and belts out a scream.

People on both sides knows that time will bring a baby, which will grow to a toddler, child, teen, young adult, adult, senior citizen. Because a woman trashes the life before it reaches the stage of baby, she's got some kind of moral superiority over a man in terms of selfishness. Please... you've got to be kidding. At least a life with no father has a chance to live life

So isn't this applicable to women as well? If they don't want a baby, don't have sex. Is that your point? Or is "men impregnating women" always a case of rape in your opinion? Or do women not have the ability to think for themselves?

Hmmm. I'm interested in what you really are saying here.

I think men being forced into fatherhood is a good point to bring up. Doesn't it seem ironic that women want to hold ALL THE CARDS?

Abortion: women decide
Men paying for the baby: women decide

It's a woman's choice, men are pretty much out of the loop and have to go along with whatever the women thinks is best.

And if you really think men can "fly under the radar" then you are misguided. The courts will find you and garnish your wages. There have been cases of men not even knowing they were fathers until the kid was like 10 years old then they got hit with child support suits.

I think it's a double standard, myself. Maybe women should NOT be able to vote for mandatory male child support, after all it only happens to men right?



I'm not sure about the demonizing part and not sure how that is relevant. But abortion is more than a single person "faced with it". There are men who are fathers of daughters who may not want them to have easy access to an abortion clinic. There are more issues to abortion than just what women face.

But regardless, I'm not sure why you aren't arguing against the gov't deciding these issues rather than men. I'm on board with a person's right to decide what happens to their own bodies. I'm not sure why you're picking on men.

A man deciding on abortion is no different than a woman, right? By your logic unless a senator is an ex-soldier, he/she shouldn't vote on military issues. Or if she/he's not a farmer, he/she shouldn't vote on agricultural issues.

I understand your frustration that men are deciding your fate. But it's no different than people being extremely uneasy about Bush doing the same for everyone either.

Well, I would have issues with that because, birth control pills, unlike
condoms, have health risks and related side effects associated with them.



That's true. I'm not saying women are behaving any more responsibly than
men. What I am saying is that men can avoid the unfairness of women having
a choice over the outcome of a pregnancy, by being VERY VERY CAREFUL
and taking responsibility for their own actions. Why is that such a bad thing?
I think women should do the same thing. We should all be very cautious and
careful to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But for men to expect or insist that once
the egg is fertilized they should have 50% say over the matter, that's not going
to happen, nor should it. Though the relgious right is doing its darndest to
impose its belief system on the masses. That's what is of great concern to me,
and hopefully every other woman in America.



Are you comparing theft to rape?



Actually we do in many cases.



I do not appreciate your crudeness, but I will respond nonetheless. The fact that
our justice system is lenient when it comes to punishing men who commit sexual
crimes against women and children shows the complacency of our male-
dominated government.



How so? By becoming a mother she is paying for the mistake. By having an
abortion she is also paying for the mistake. Both choices involve decisions
that must be carried through by the woman. Where is the man in this scenario?
Is he standing by at the abortion clinic to give moral support? Is he standing
by in the delivery room to give moral support? The weight is on the woman
when it comes to pregnancy. For responsible men the weight is also on them,
but it is not enforced by law. Men can run the other way and never look back.
And often they do.



Yes, they are. But there are states trying to change that. Does South Dakota
ring a bell?



There are a good portion of men who are responsible and can see the
importance in women retaining their rights on this issue. I'm thankful for those
men.


So what is your disagreement with me exactly? That I think women in
government should, as women in the real world, have the final say
over abortion? What's wrong with that idea. If you agree it's the woman's
choice, then why should men get involved if ultimately you think it's up to
the woman???



Men can shirk their responsibilities by leaving. The system, with all of its
flaws, is not capable of tracking down every dead-beat dad. Men can
run and never get caught if they really want to.



That's not always the case. More often, women have babies knowing they'll
be doing it without the help of the father. Again, you are demonizing and
generaling.

It is definitely applicable to women as well. Please read this carefully. Men
who do not want to risk getting a woman pregnant, and then not having the
final say over that pregnancy, should be very cautious and selective.

The general response has been, "It's not fair for the woman to make the choice
as to whether or not she'll keep the baby." So that was my solution to that
problem. Make sense?




That may be true, but not across the boards, and besides that, money is not
the only necessity in child-rearing. Why are men sooooo hung up on the money
aspect? How about being there for your flesh and blood!? What do you say
to that? Is that not a factor that a woman must consider?



Innocent children are then at the mercy of that process.



Are you saying that a father's decision on abortion should override his daughter's?
It's her body and her life we are talking about here.



I'm not trying to "pick on men." I'm simply trying to put things into perspective
about abortion and where men fit into this issue. What if it came down to the
Supreme Court? The majority are men and they are conservative. Should they
be deciding?

Ok, I get it, you hate men.

My question to you is, why do you think another woman should have a say in what goes on with your body?

You seem open to the idea of women deciding whether you can have an abortion or not, why is that?




I'm saying it goes both ways. If you're a woman and society says you can't abort a fetus, a woman can always avoid getting a man to impregnate her! Make sense?



No, money isn't everything, but its a lot. In fact, in many cases when men WANT to be fathers, these MALE DOMINATED courts give women custody and men have to work to support a lazy mother who spends the child support money on herself.

Money is a lot when you make very little. Apparently you must be a Bush twin to think money doesn't matter. Try making a living when 20% of your salary is garnished.



I'm saying JUST LIKE YOU said about there being children involved, that abortion isn't ONLY about one person. Are you saying that a 3rd party abortion clinic's decision should override a girl's parents??



Yeah, that's called democracy. Do you think there are no women that are against abortion?? Do