As a person who has been pregnant three times ( an early miscarriage, and two children thereafter) I will give you anecdotal evidence that (IMO) there is no actual bond during the pregnancy. The minute I held my children for the first time, The maternal 'bond' kicked in. Before, there was nothing. I think my husband was more attached than I because the babies didn't make him sick and he didn't have to quit all of his bad habits to bring them into the world. I held a slight resentment until I met the little ones, and then (of course) I'd kill for them. Whether it's a male couple, a female couple, or a conventional couple, the bonding with infants takes place after birth....just my opinion, of course.

Sure, it dovetails nicely into reproductive rights, but you still didn't explain why men have to have accountability and responsibility and women don't.

Like in the movie "as good as it gets"- How do you write women so well (question to Jack Nicholson's charactier) his response- " I just write a man, then take away all accountability and responsibility"- no truer words have ever been spoke. LOL

Are you addressing me? Is there a reason you are so insulting, or is that a stab at humor? I have already given you a link which is on topic to where you seem to want to go.

Didn't mean it to insult, truly, no offense intended, but did use it to make a point. At no point of this debate is a woman responsible for her actions, and she gets to make all the decision regarding the entire process, with the male getting no input whatsoever. I don't want to discuss reproductive rights overall, because that is a much larger issue, right down to who gets custody of the zygote!

I think man should get the same option to deny parenthood as the woman! How can you have equal rights if you don't even have this basic issue resolved?

Ultimately, the man will never have the same 'rights' as the woman simply because the woman is the one carrying the fetus. She's the one putting her life on the line and therefore has complete control over whether or not said pregnancy continues. A woman can't control if her husband has a vasectomy for the same reason: it's his body.

That said though, I don't think a man should be tied down for 18 years for a pregnancy he wanted nothing to do with. Ultimately what we're looking at are two immature individuals who have no business being parents if they can't sit down and come to some mature, adult conclusions on the whole deal. There are certainly irresponsible men, but there are also women who have children specifically to punish the man. Both of these are awful and should be stopped.

Men have one very powerful weapon in having control over unwanted pregnancies.
It's called CONDOMS! Women will do very irrational and immature things
around the subject of pregnancy. So, my advice to any man who doesn't want
to fall victim: abstain, or BYOB (not Bring Your Own Booze, rather, Bring Your Own Birth control!)

Once a woman is pregnant, whether or not she keeps the baby is solely her choice, because it is her body. Men should understand that and not get themselves into a situation in which they have no control.

Abortion is unfair if the male wants the child and the female doesn't? Tough. Life isn't fair. No male, married or not, should have the right to force the female he got pregnant to carry the child to term. If I were married to a man who would force me to do something as emotionally and physically traumatic as this, I would divorce him before he knew what hit him. There are fundamental differences, advantages and disadvantages, to being born of a certain gender. Some of these things people are going to just have to learn to deal with, and men's "abortion rights" are one of them. Just as females are naturally the weaker sex, as in physical strength, and therefore many areas of work would be more suitable for males than females (think construction work, etc.), males are born with the disadvantage of his role in creating another person. They should accept this instead of resenting females for having more input in the decision, complaining (without any logical basis, I might add) that "men have to have accountability and responsibility and women don't." This sounds a little farfetched. Would you prefer, cruisingram, we go back to the days where women who had sex out of wedlock wore a scarlet letter? Where a woman having sex, or even raped out of wedlock was a crime worthy of death? While the males weren't held accountable at all? I understand your position, but the mindset that men are just so unfairly victimized while women are just free to do anything their heart desires is wrong.
It is a fact that women, not men, go through sixty or more days a year, every year for 30-40 years of their lives, of bleeding, cramps, nausea, and headache for the possibility they might want to get pregnant a few times during that period. It is a fact that humans form inside of the female body. When males go through this, then maybe they can have "abortion rights" as well. You donate sperm, and the forming human is 50% yours. It's still inside her body. You can complain about it all you want, but that's just the way things are. There are undoubtedly cases where a woman intentionally gets pregnant and tells her man that she's on the pill, or malicious intents like that. That very well should be illegal. And yes, the male should not be held responsible for raising that child. However, the misuse of abortion and birth control by a few women should not set the laws about abortion rights for all women.

{Edited to further address CruisingRam} - "Women will stop being treated as sex objects when men stop being treated as success objects, or, as my grandad says, I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!" This, coupled with you posting the "joke" from As Good As it Gets, and the whole "men have to have accountability and responsibility and women don't" bit makes me wonder if you don't have a beef or two with women in general. This statement makes it seem like all women who are treated like sex objects is because it's their fault, because they all go after men's money. Um, no? Then you place the responsibility on those women to change how men act towards them, because you unfairly assumed those women go after men's money. So it's all the women's fault, how men act towards them. Nice job of absolving males of "accountability and responsibility."

Women ALSO have very powerful weapons in having control over unwanted pregnancies. I have a difficult time with the idea that a man must be responsible prior to conception while a woman may be irresponsible and use abortion to deal with her mistake later.

In my opinion men and women should have exactly the same amount of say in whether or not to have an abortion........none.

All interesting posts...however, the bottom line for me is that it is likely better to terminate the further growth of a clump of cells than to see a conscious, aware child suffering - whether it is emotionally, physically or mentally; whether lack of love, food or parent(s).

It has also occurred to me that the pro-life extremists who would remove choices for other human beings (not being satisfied with making their own choices) are surely all on waiting lists to adopt some of the orphans in this country, yes?

And lastly, all semantics aside, it goes to the ultimate flaw in human nature, from which all problems can be traced - the attempt of one person to impose their will upon another. Why can't everyone simply be satisfied with their own beliefs and choices and actions? Why does it have to spill over into forcing, or trying to force others to do as they decree is best?

PS: But to address the topic more directly, I agree that a man should have a choice; however, biology will forever determine the boundaries of those choices. A woman who 'tricks' a man into fatherhood should face consequences; that man should have a choice whether to opt in or out of the parental role. A father who wants a child when a woman does not has a real problem; while we can hope the woman would carefully consider carrying the child to term and surrendering it to a willing parent, we cannot force her to do so. The larger biological investment is with the female, as is (one way or another) terminating a pregnancy.
As responsible adults, we are all responsible for birth control if we do not want a pregnancy. Perhaps another debate topic could be the differences in male-female birth control, and the relative ease of male birth control & procedures in comparison to the females choices.

Hi Incredulous.

Please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you were the last person to post and want to add more information, you merely need to go in & edit your last post. If 12 hours have passed you may make a new one because your edit window will have closed.

Thanks

For all those who say 'No, the man should have no rights'--are you also agreeing that the man should then be removed from all financial responsibility if the child is carried to term? If not, could you please explain your reasoning, since it seems obvious to me that one must follow the other. The fetus is either solely the women's right (and therefore responsibility) or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

I think that up until a certain point in the pregnancy (or until a certain amount of time has passed since the man is informed of the pregnancy/birth), they should be able to sign a legal waiver and pay a certain fee to free themselves from legal responsibility for the child. The woman still has the ultimate choice, but the man shouldn't be penalized because of it.

Why is it a woman has to "take responsibility" for her sexual actions, but a man does not? If the man decides he doesnt want it, than he's all of a sudden exempt from his responsibilities? Makes sense to me.

Here's the basic formulation of maturity:


Responsibility and authority are always linked. Whenever one is diminished, the other must be diminished as well, otherwise an injustice occurs.

As long as women have the absolute authority over reproductive rights, then justice demands that they also bear the absolute responsibility. If the authority of women is limited, then so too should the responsibility.

See how simple that is?

A woman has the right to have an abortion or give up the child for adoption any time she wishes under the law. She has no obligation whatsoever to give the father's wishes any consideration. If she chooses to keep the child, the father is legally obligated, whether he wanted the child or not, to pay child support for 18 years.

So what was that again?

I agree that men should have an equal say in what happens on the issue of abortion.

For all you men who are indeed passionate about this subject, that is good, but how about doing some things that would help make a positive change:


1. Convince the deadbeat dads in this world to step up to the plate and be
responsible. Or at the very least, don't become a dead-beat dad yourself.

2. Educate friends, family, youngsters in your lives, on the dangers and consequences of unprotected sex.

3. If you are single, choose your mates wisely, and practice safe sex ALWAYS (until you're ready for parenthood)!

4. Donate money or time to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ and organizations like it. (their aim is also to educate as well as reduce the abortion rate)

5. Be compassionate and kind to each other.
(you won't change someone's mind with threats and abusive language)


These are just a few things WE can all do to help solve the omnipresent problem of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies.

Talking about these issues is very good, but it also has to be backed up with a little ACTION.

I second your post, doomed planet. I would add something, though.

It is counterproductive to be downright insulting towards all women to make a point. I don't know of many mothers who are fashion plates, or live really high on the hog as a stay-at-home-mom. Statements such as,"Women look at paychecks, so men should look at their breasts", or "women have no responsibility or accountability" come to mind.

Of course, the crowning acheivement for vulgarity in that regard was the initial (banned) member's posts, which explained that women (who are pregnant) have nothing to do with the pregnancy or birth process.



Edited to add: Here is a good test to determine who is more 'accountable' for a pregnancy. Imagine you are the parent of a 15 year old. Which is worse, your 15 year old daughter getting pregnant, or your 15 year old son making someone pregnant? Now, ask yourself why. Anyone who says they'd rather their 15 year old daughter get pregnant is a liar. I thank God everyday that I have two sons because life is much easier that way.

And how do *ANY* of those solve the problem that a man is legally obligated to pay for 18 years of care for any child that he didn't want in the first place? I think you're missing the point. Being responsible is one thing, and certainly all of the above should be practiced, but it still doesn't fix anything!

There are plenty of women out there who, purposely or accidentally, get pregnant and choose to hold the child over the father, just for money. Do you consider that fair? What should be done about it?

Cephus, any stats for these plentiful women?
Just as a lot of men who've responded to this question want women to be responsible for not getting pregnant - and if she does, it's her fault, she knew there was a possibility of her getting pregnant when she decided to have sex, protection or none - it is equally the male's fault, as if the condom broke, it's still his fault, as he knew they aren't 100% effective and there's always going to be a possibility of a person becoming pregnant if they have sex.
Also, one thing I realized, with some amusement, is something I'd like to remind men whom would like to take away a woman's choice over whether to carry her child to term or not. Or want restrict it for everyone because of the handful of women who get pregnant but tell their partner they're using birth control, or tell him they're going to have the child but abort it anyway. Which, I've said before, there should be laws against. Take note, gentlemen: if a woman's reproductive rights are taken away and given to the men or the fetus - either the father can force the female to carry the child to term because he wants it, or the fetus can usurp the rights of the mother carrying it because killing it would be "murder"- females, quite likely, would just stop having sex because of the great possibility of becoming a mother should they get pregnant, or going to jail if they had an abortion. Meaning, that if the average family has two kids - I don't know how many children are in an average family, I just made that up - that means the man would be having sex a grand total of twice in his entire life. Because the benefits to the female for having a few minutes of pleasure wouldn't even begin to minutely outweigh the possibility of having a life-altering pregnancy. Even if the woman and man were both single. No woman would want to have sex with any man because they simply wouldn't want to risk becoming pregnant. Now, tell me... do you guys really want that?

Suzy- you are talking about an almost uniquely western problem- in many countries women have no say and continue to have sex willingly- and in fact, don't even choose thier mate, and the male doesn't choose either, typically the mother decides and the father negotiates on who you marry and have children with.

The bottom line is what Cephus, Bikerdad etc has said and no one seems to be able to challenge, if you have all the choice, you have all the responsiblity, and that is simply not the way it is in the US right now. If women wish to have all the choice they should have all the responsibility.

We had this discussion on another thread, but it keeps coming up here, so I'll state what I did there.

In a nutshell, a woman has the 'choice' to abort for 12 weeks (except in certain states, where it is longer), of which only 8 she would be aware of the pregnancy, if she's very observant and regular. That is a total of 8 weeks which, according to some posters here, grant her 'all choice, which should be coupled with all encompassing responsibility'. That is also assuming that she would be willing to get an abortion or give away the child she carried.

My response on the other thread:

Edited to add: Also, CR, I'm not sure which 'west' you're referring to. I don't believe there's much sex going on in the nonsecular middle eastern countries, Asia and Russia have abortions as well as most if not all of Europe.

Maybe I'm tired, but I simply don't understand how a word of your response related to mine. A uniquely western problem? In many countries women have no say and continue to have sex willingly? Color me thoroughly confused My point was that if a woman's reproductive choice -here in America- were taken away or given to the father or the fetus' rights usurped the mother's, women would slowly but surely stop having sex, period. Unless they happen to want children, of course. I thought I was pretty clear, but just in case I wasn't, let me spell it out again:
1) Laws change so that either abortions are illegal, or the father can force the woman he made pregnant to carry the child to term for him or for him to put up for adoption.
2) Females, who would basically end up with a pregnancy scare every time they had sex, would eventually just stop having recreational sex and have sex only when they want to bear a child. This is because no birth control is 100% effective but abstinence, so if a woman has sex she very well could become pregnant, and not only that, but would be forced to become a mother. The benefits of recreational sex are heavily outweighed by the life-altering mandate of having to give birth simply because the birth control method failed, and sense I believe most women have common sense, they would simply stop doing event A because it could lead to event B.
3) Males get much, much, much, much less sex (except for married couples, not having much to begin with, lol), which I think would lead to all kinds of problems... I happen to believe sex for males is more of a biological function than anything, what with nocturnal emissions and whatnot. I thought that less sex would be something most males would care about...
It's also very logical. If I knew that having sex could definitively lead to me giving birth and becoming a mother, I simply wouldn't have sex, and neither I think a lot of other women.

Dear Cephus,

It's very clear what a man needs to do to ensure that he doesn't end up a dad
by force (rather than choice).....

Practice safe sex
Choose your woman wisely (that's most important)

Most women out there are ethical and responsible, believe it or not.

ALSO: It might be a good rule of thumb that nightclubs, and high schools are not the place to go looking for dates.


Hope this advice helps.

I hate to play the devils advocate here, but what if a woman stated that she was using birth control and she really wasn't? Would a man still be obligated to pay for child support?

In a perfect world, both parties would be responsible and there would be no unwanted children. This is far from a perfect world though. Under the current law, a woman has 100% ability to abort or not abort. The man has absolutely no legal say in the matter, nor can he absolve himself of his financial responsibility. She has all the choices, he has none. They both share in the creation of the fetus, they do not share anything beyond that.

And I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of women out there who do try to financially benefit from these things. Heck, just a couple months ago was the woman who claimed that Ozzy Osbourne fathered her 9-year old child, but Ozzy had a vasectomy 11-years ago. This is not uncommon at all, even in cases where it isn't blatant fraud.

From the original posting:
Absolutely not.

Just as a five dollar bill is no longer my property when I give it away, a sperm is no longer mine when I give it away. Just as I have no say in how that five dollar bill is spent, I similarly have no say in what that sperm (along with several million companions) is used for. Whether its mouthwash or "baby formula" is no say of mine.

Of course, if somebody purchases illegal drugs with what was once my five dollar bill, I am in no way accountable by the law for the purchase of illegal drugs. It was of course my money at one time, but I gave it away. I would also say that if a woman conceives and gives birth from the donation of my sperm, I should in no way be required by law to be responsible for an ensuing child.

Neither the man or the woman has any say in conception. The act of sex is (usually) a mutual agreement, but nobody has a say in whether or not a sperm successfully unites with an egg when discussing conventional sexual practices. Once a woman knows she is pregnant she is afforded by law the choice of whether to terminate the pregnancy, attempt to see it to fruition, and if successful, she may choose whether to raise the child or turn it over for adoption.

A man has no choice in these decisions and should not be held financially or otherwise accountable for the choices a woman makes in the aftermath of conception. Neither is at fault or "to blame" for the conception, but the woman does have the choice of whether she attempts to see the pregnancy through and whether or not she retains or surrenders her parental rights following a birth.

While I realize absolving the man of any financial or parental obligations presents a very tough decision for a pregnant woman, this is what appears to be fair considering the options facing her. With rights over her own body she is given the choice of whether to allow her body to continue its reproductive processes after conception. If she does, and she is successful, she is additionally given the choice as to whether or not she raises the child, thereby accepting parental rights -- including, but not limited to, financial obligation.

Both people are responsible for the conception, but only the woman is responsible for the pursuit of a successful pregnancy resulting in birth.

So, men should not be involved with the abortion decision for these reasons?

The argument sounds very similar to one in regards to rape. Men need not be held accountable for rape as most men do not do it. If you choose to be alone in a room with some guy and he rapes you, it is your fault, you chose to be in the room with him. Don't meet guys in nightclubs and there will be no more rapes.

Both thought processes are flawed and not addressing the problem.

Abs is almost onto something here, when talking about women's sole responsibility for prenancy.

I think women have sole and exclusive responsibility for pregnancy, but the man and woman involved have joint responsibility for any children that result from that pregnancy.

Because of this, a man should have no say in the decision on abortion whether or not he wants one. A woman will have to live with the consequences of this, including the breakdown of any relationship she might have had with the man before she decided to have (or not to have) an abortion.

The father of children has an obligation to them, financial or otherwise, but not to the mother, unless he chooses to have one.

We can all think of circumstances in which exceptions arise, and I think each case should be treated on it's merits, but as a general rule I have no problem at all with women having sole responsibility for the progress of a pregnancy, and both mothers and fathers having shared responsibility for resulting children.

Chivalry is alive in England.

Honestly, I believe it is a problem, but irreconcilable in most instances. A man should never be able to force a woman to have an abortion, for reasons that have been addressed by all. A woman could lie about birth control, in which case the man would be obligated to pay support for that child. If a man was granted rights to abandon the child during the first trimester, that sort of woman would not tell him she was pregnant that early on.

If rights to abandon obligation extended throughout the pregnancy, the woman would have no option to terminate, and the terminally stupid might not even be aware of their pregnancy until after the first trimester. Then, there would have to be proof of deception, which would be virtually impossible. Mandatory pregnancy tests for relationships every month so that the man could inspect the results himself? I don't see government enforcement in that regard.

Furthermore, society would absorb the costs for those unsupported children, with no help whatsoever from the father. Men have to be very careful in this area, but I'd still rather have a 15 year old son who impregnated someone else than a 15 year old pregnant daughter.

As it pertains to chivalry and values, I agree with both the mother and father sharing responsibility for any resulting children. It is only in regards to legal obligations that I disagree a father should be required to tend to a child either financially or emotionally.


The use of contraceptives is not guaranteed to prevent conception. And as Mrs.Pigpen has already touched on, it is not difficult or improbable for a woman to deceive a man about her own contraceptive use. While I believe both sexual partners should take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies, the fact of the matter is that the woman retains the ultimate say over her body's reproductive processes.

This may not seem fair to some women, but that is how nature works. Whether a man uses a condom or other male contraceptive is irrelevant to the woman's choices regarding her own body. If she wishes to prevent conception it is her responsibility to see that her partner use some protection or take the steps to protect herself.

If conception occurs, it is purely the decision of the woman whether she allows her body to continue gestation in the pursuit of a successful birth. The man is granted no rights over the woman's body as a result of pregnancy. Whether intentional or not, the responsibility for seeing conception through to birth lies solely with the woman. She makes the choice of whether a child results from the conception without any legal rights to the decision granted to the man.

With the rights of a woman to choose between abortion or birth, adoption or parenting, the responsibility for conception is different from the responsibility for a resulting child. While the decent thing is for the man to assist the woman, without any legal responsibility or choice in the development of the child I do not feel the man should be legally obligated to care for a child either financially, emotionally or otherwise.

I agree with the premise, but the reality is, society would probably be burdened with the responsibility of supporting the child of the father who decides to contribute nothing financially. Should society be the first to be burdened, or the biological parents?

Surely the presumption should be that men should support their progeny, unless they can demonstrate a reason why they shouldn't, just as in the abortion debate, there should be a presumption that the pregnancy will go to term, unless the mother can make a reasonable case as to why it shouldn't?

These questions get at the core of the debate to me. Are you proposing that a woman may decide to terminate a pregnancy due to financial burden to herself but the father does not have that option? If abortion is a legal option, why should there be a legal presumption of obligation by a father who would prefer to terminate the pregnancy due to financial burden? If society decides it wishes to provide financial assistance to a parent does this mean it can also now pick out individuals to provide this assistance? If society decides to do this they should also be willing to pay for it.

It is never a good idea to separate the monetary decision making process from the one having to pay. Decisions based on: "Sure, money should be spent on that, as long as I do not have to pay for it and someone else will" are not good policies.

Financial responsibilities are the responsibility of those making the decisions. If a mother decides solo parent a child she should be accepting that responsibility.

I agree (assuming that she has the means). Now, with that thought in mind, how is that enforcible in any equitable way?

The perfect solution would be to allow the father to relinquish his rights at the beginning of the pregnancy. The woman could then decide to 'go it alone'. This would require some sort of legal contract allowing him to forgo financial responsibility as well as parental involvement.

Suppose the woman doesn't know/doesn't tell during the first trimester? Should he then be allowed to relinquish his responsibilty? Furthermore, if he is granted the right to relinquish responsibilities throughout the pregnancy he might lead the woman into a false sense of security, offering her financial support at the onset and abandoning it as the pregnancy progresses.

Good questions, Mrs. Pigpen. My thought would be that whenever the father is notified, he would have to make a permanent decision then. The time to contemplate should be short but not immediate.

I think current law is unfair where a mother can sue for paternal back support years after a child is born and without a father's prior knowledge there was even a pregnancy. Fathers should not be held to back support no matter when they are notified. Ideally, notification of the pregnancy would be during the pregnancy and early. I do not think we can force this information from a mother. However, a mother withholding paternal information should not result in a punitive situation against the father.

Women have the right to terminate parenting responsibility via abortion. While men do not have the abortion decision, they still should be able to terminate parental responsibility just like women are currently able to do. A mother has the responsibility to notify the father of a pregnancy. A mother's negligence to inform the father in a timely fashion should not result in the father bearing the legal burden of that negligence.

Your other question was about people becoming parents when they do not have the means. That should be the subject of another debate. It is a problem. I do not think society has been answering it very well.

I agree that the expectant father should have a couple of months' notice in which to decide, potentially terminating his obligations. I also think he should be given the opportunity to reconsider for a short time after the birth.
No one knows how they will feel until they see their child for the first time. A mother who decides to give her child up for adoption has this opportunity, and a father should as well.

It's good to play devil's advocate from time to time. And, I'm happy to
respond to your statement.


It all boils down to how well a man knows the woman he is involved with.
Yes, there are many women out there who do deceitful things. But, I believe
if you are a straight-shooter (no pun intended) and build a relationship with a woman based on honesty, then you will be more likely to get honesty back.

In other words, don't play games with women. I think a lot of problems
occur because of "game-playing" between men and women. Women start
to feel desperate, they want to hold onto the guy, etc. And so they lie.

Edited to add: Yep, he'd still be obligated, under the law, to pay child support.
Life's a beach!!!

To answer the direct question , No. However, I think this is missing what is a much more pertinent question--should a man have the right to prevent an abortion he is opposed to? Also, to carry on with the original question, should a man have a legal right to refuse to support a child he wanted aborted? To assume the woman is the only one affected by the decision is provided a defacto answer of Yes! to this question, since that is the only way to isolate the effect on the woman. If the answer is no, I would be very interested to hear an explanation of why a man should have to bear the primary financial responsibility of a decision made entirely by someone else.

Now, that isn't entirely accurate, is it? There was initially some very active participation in the process. Let's not skew the issue so much as to pretend that the woman holds up a sign 'yes' or 'no' to the question, "Should this man be a father?", followed by a pedicure. It's a bit more dynamic than that.
Doesn't the mother also bear financial responsibility? Ultimately, I agree with the point, but I still don't like the idea of my tax money going towards the raising of someone else's child, when the parents should be responsible.

I took Hobbes comment to be in reference to present day law and whether it should be maintained. A single mother who is not contributing financially to her children can apply to the government to receive monetary assistance. The father, of these same children, who is not contributing financially can be put in jail. The sex dichotomy in family law in regards to rights and responsibilities is deplorable. Why should one parent be held to a different standard than the other?

I agree that parents should be financially responsible to their children. How do you force them to do that? (another topic)

Currently, women can, as they should be able to in the future, terminate their financial responsibility via abortion. Currently, men can not, as they should not in the future, terminate a pregnancy. However, men should be able to terminate their financial responsibility, which they are not currently able to do.

You are giving some support for the idea that a sex act indicates a permanent decision to raise a child. This argument supports the idea that a man can force a woman to maintain a pregnancy.

Can't a single father raising children and 'not contributing financially' receive monetary assistance? IOW, the exactly analogous situation with the father raising the children? I have known families where this was the case.

Not in any way. To state that women make 'the entire decision' is inaccurate, for the reason in my quote. I don't see the connection to forced pregnancy and childbirth.

Sometimes a single father raising a child can receive financial assistance. Why should they be treated differently (as a criminal) other times? I do not understand this dichotomy any more than the sex based dichotomys.

------

The logic I saw was this:

Hobbes said a father should not be held responsible for a women's decision to continue a pregnancy.

You said, the father was involved with the decision to be responsible for the child when he had sex with the woman.

I said, if this was true, then likewise the mother must also have been making a decision to be responsible for the child by having sex with the father. If society expects the father to be declaring intent to raise a child because of the sex act should not society also expect the mother to be declaring intent to raise a child because of the same act?

The wellbeing of children is in the interest of society. We must pay if the mother or father is unable. It is in the interest of society to make people accountable for the children they produce. The mother is accountable for the children she produces, unless she elects to adopt them off, or is able to give them to the father to raise. She cannot capriciously throw them out into the street.

A woman has the right to choose an abortion within the first trimester. No free society should force an abortion on a person (I would argue the other way as well, no free society should be able to force a pregnancy until the point of fetal viability). Either way, the woman has the right in this case, at this time. That doesn’t mean the man had no decision in the process (asserted by Hobbes). The woman has significantly more of a decision in the process, and she is also significantly more involved in the process.

If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, society is not charged for that decision. It is arguably in society’s best interest (monetarily) that she terminate the pregnancy if she cannot afford it. If a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy for a child, whom she cannot support, she might either choose to give the child up for adoption, obtain support from the father, or apply for state aid if the support is unobtainable. In any case, the child must be cared for. Who should be charged first?

Edited to add:I do believe that men should have some decision in the process beyond the simple,"Please, I don't want this kid". I'm just not certain how much, or how that would be enforced for the best interest to everyone. I also believe men's rights as parents are inequitable, for which I know you have a lot more background than I.

Men should support progeny that they wanted. If a man and woman are using birth control, clearly neither of them want a pregnancy. If the birth control fails and the woman decides, on her own, with no consultation with the man, that she's going to have the child, why should the man, who didn't want a child in the first place, be forced into 18-years of financial burden because of a broken piece of latex? After all, he had no options after the initial act and was not responsible for the pregnancy itself.

Certainly, a man's window of choice should be limited, perhaps to 6 weeks from the date they find out about the pregnancy, but it is not fair in the extreme for a man to be told that he's a father, the kid is now 15 and he owes 15 years of back child support.

Mrs.Pigpen writes:


But where are the father's rights? A woman has the right to an abortion. What does the father have the right to? Pay or go to jail? I'm not seeing an equitable situation here. If the mother chooses, of her own free will, to have the child and the father chooses not to support it, that still leaves the mother with her choice. Personally, I feel that breeding when you are not financially able to care for the child should be a crime.

I tend to agree, however, the difference is the woman who decides to abort does not cost society a bunch of money. The man who decides to terminate his parental obligations does. It is inequitable (as is the entire process of reproduction), and I would tend to agree that a man should be able to terminate his obligations at the beginning...but that doesn't answer the question of how much that would cost all of us.

Two points--exactly what rights does the man currently have in this situation. I am certainly not a legal expert in this area, but it does seem that our rights are limited to, as asserted above, 'pay or go to jail'. This is certainly not an equitable situation--it took two to conceive the child, it should take two to decide the outcome of the event.

Second, as to whether the woman has a significantly higher involvement in the process, I also think this is not the case when considered throughout the life of the child. Certainly, the woman has almost all of the involvement in the pregnancy and birth. However, the law seems to therefore assume that the man's role is therefore to provide the financial support. This tends to make the total involvement somewhat equal (the mother's 9 months of physical discomfort followed by the man's 18+ years of financial obligations). This can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is certainly not inconsequential (and is probably an amount that many women would gladly undergo the pregnancy for, thereby demonstrating the equality of the burden).

As an aside, this support is clearly not limited to 18 years. Recent state laws make the financial support obligations continue through the college years, even though no such obligation exists for married couples. Thus, the inequities continue....

If this is so, then clearly abortions should not be allowed, unless you think that is in that future child's best interests?

All very true.



The reason the welfare of children is in the interest to society is because we hope those children grow up to become productive members, not because they're cute and cuddly.

Children which are never born don't have a future. Is it in our interest to eradicate all abortions in order to bring those children into the world? I don't think so, for reasons I've stated on another thread. The numerous disadvantages (of illegality) for society at large would outweigh the potential benefits. Once those children are in the world, the chances are great that they will grow up, and the way they are cared for during the formative years will impact on all of our futures.

A woman needs to commit to the care of a child that she *CHOOSES* to have regardless of the commitment of the father. If he chooses to opt out legally, she'll know before the birth that she will have 100% responsibility. If she cannot handle that, she needs to make a different choice. She has her choices, he has his. Nobody has a *RIGHT* to breed indiscriminately and without the ability to take responsibility for their choices.

Although I tend to like and agree with Ms. Pigpen's reasoning that society should do what is in the best interests of the child, and has the least cost on society in general, I think it important to also note that the adoption route handles this particular problem rather neatly. The children are very well cared for, and the cost to society is nothing.