1.)Right now, there are legal recourses for me to give up financial support of a given child. Usually that is in the case of an ex who is given full custody so that the new husband can adopt the child or what have you. I don't think it's unfair in any way. If you helped create it, you should pay for it,it's that simple. Even if the child isn't biologically yours, I can see how it's in the best interest of society and the child that if a personal connection is made, to keep that going.

2.)Yes, and they do have that right. I wouldn't grant it unless a couple wanted to adopt the child, any time before that is just not right. Society shouldn't pay eighteen years what was created in all likelihood-five minutes.

C'mon Hobbes, we're not talking about buying a purse with Versacci on the front and wondering why snickers ensue. And the risk here is obviously higher. But if you're willing to engage in the most intimate of acts with a woman who you don't know well enough to figure out if she's willing to perpetuate a fraud in order to have a child to milk you for $300 a month, well maybe, just maybe, karma completed its return trip there.

Is she blameless in that equation and shouldn't be held at least partly accountable? Of course not. Am I advocating no legal remedy for the man whatsoever? Nope, he has a chance currently to make that case. But if *any* person is prepared to engage in an act that carries with it a life altering risk, they owe it to themselves to ensure they mitigate that risk as much as possible. The woman ultimately assumes greater risk in this equation at many levels and thus, until biology changes or pharmaceutical advancements progress, the man has to pay the piper if his number is called.

Doc

Why doesn't that work in reverse though? If a father gets custody of a child after birth or through divorce - have you ever heard of a woman paying child support or alimony? I know that I haven't (although I don't claim to know about every divorce or custody hearing in existence).

Yes, Cube Jockey, it works both ways. I've seen these cases with divorced couples in the military, when the father was the dependant spouse. I actually knew a couple of pilots who were married and had a child. The mother stayed on flying status, and the father left the military to care for the baby. They divorced and he gets child support (last I heard). I also knew of a couple with twins. The mother was a corporate executive, and the father stayed home because his job wasn't as well paying. When they divorced, he obtained custody and the support.

I am not proposing "forcing" marriage. I am simply proposing semi-forced cohabitation.

Huh? How do you "semi-enforce" cohabitation? And, what good would it be
if mom and dad are at each other's throats because they are mismatched
to begin with. They shouldn't live together, and they really should not have
even "slept" together. Having a child together would be their biggest mistake
of all.

Perhaps men should be a little more particular with whom they decide to
have sexual relations. It might also be a good idea for two people to
discuss such scenarios before-hand. "If our b.c. doesn't work, what do
we do?" kind of a conversation. Of course, all common sense gets thrown
out the window, at 2:00 A.M., when the two are drunk, and in the heat of
the moment.

You are absolutely right which is why the alternative would be to give the child up for adoption or have an abortion. That is why I said semi.

My real point is simply to replace the current solution which is to have some guy pay for two homes and two, essentially, independent families. Let the woman move in with the man if she wants financial support. If a man is truly serious about wanting to not just be a checkbook, there is his chance to prove it.

Excuse me? What happened to it takes two to tango?

Again, this isn't necessarily about the remedy versus the unequal choices. A woman can choose not to be a parent after conception. A man can't. Yet, if you want to talk about risks, who takes the most risks? The woman. Yet, the man suffers a lifetime of consequences in being the cash cow for a child he may not want.

Abortion is not a solution. But if both parents don't agree to raise the child, the child should be put up for adoption. A healthy newborn would be gone in about 5 minutes. The state would not be a warden and a couple who have the financial means and the desire to raise a child will take control of the irresponsible behavior of BOTH parties.

If the woman chooses to raise the kid on her own, she should be on her own. She knew the risks and consequences as much as the guy that got her pregnant.

I like the way the word "fair" is so casually tossed around in this debate. It doesn't have much grounding in reality, but it's funny just the same.

When men can get pregnant by women who can get up, get dressed and walk away from any responsibilities that might pop up nine months later then we can talk about what's fair. The "poor, poor pitiful me" tone of some of these posts could come straight out of a Men's Rights meeting.

A woman's body is her body. No man has the right to force her to become a breed mare. If you have even a basic understanding of biology then you should know who carries the eggs and who's carrying the fertilizer.

When men die or suffer physical injury from pregnancy then they can get into the discussion about "rights."

In 2001, the last year available from the Center for Disease Control, 399 women died during childbirth. Maybe a guy or two fainted during childbirth, but sorry, I can't seem to find any figures on how many men died giving birth.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus043.pdf (Adobe Acrobat required)

It would be laughable to think men feel they deserve an equal say because they have to shell out some dead presidents to clothe and feed their unwanted prodigy.
Does the crude, but accurate phrase, "Can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" ring any bells?

Here's where I put on my hardcore conservative hat. I don't want to pay for your fun. My property taxes are high enough. You make the baby. You pay for the baby. You don't want to, keep your fly up and hakuna matata, dude.

If that's not how you roll and want to play, then you had better be ready to pay. Quit yer whining, be a man for Chrissakes and take a little responsibility instead of trying to weasel out of it. There's no way a guy can convince me if he pays $200 a month in child support and she gets the 2:00 a.m. feedings with a colicky baby that HE'S the injured party.

DR you make an excellent point.
Mrs. P


You make it seem like there are just two options here. She can not have the abortion and still put the baby up for adoption. Let's be clear of what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that the mother and father of the baby get later to the 9th month of pregnancy, break up, and then the father have the ability to say.... "I don't want the baby anymore" Here is how I envision it going. A woman gets pregnant, she finds out she is pregnant from the doctor, she then informs the man of her pregnancy, at that point or very shortly after he lets her know he is not ready to be a father, nor does he want the baby. At this point I still think the decision should be up to the woman 100% "Do I want a abortion?"
She decides "yes", like you said there is no baby. She decides "no", then if all goes well the baby is born in nine months or so. At this point again she has come to a decision. Do I want to give the baby up for adoption. I am totally against this being just a woman's choice, but if the father does not want the kid the baby can be given up for adoption.
Now let's say the man says up front "I don't want it" The mother decides I will carry the baby to term, the mother decides I will raise the baby, the mother should not thereby have the ability to enforce the responsibilities of her decisions to have and keep the baby on the man who let it be known he did not want it. If a woman has the right of self-determination, so should the man....which leads me to the other thing written.



As I wrote the last sentence I could already hear the exasperated voices going..."He had the right of self-determination up to the point he decided to let the tadpoles swim in the pool." Yet if a man's self determination ends at the point of getting the women pregnant, then so should the woman's. If his will can be ignored, then so should hers. So this is how it makes an argument in favor of the elimination of abortion. If you say "he played he should pay" with the man, you can not adopt a different perspective just because the person we are talking about is a woman. As I've said all along the only people doing this are the pro-choice people against a man having a financial abortion. Everyone else is adopting an equal standard stance, either for or against. And there is nothing unrealistic about having these equal stances.

I voted that it is fair, although, it is with the disclaimer that it is fair to the child. The child's welfare is the only fair answer.

I can only imagine how many prospective father's would be lining up to sign something that relinquishes all responsibility.

And to say that the woman can have an abortion or give it up for adoption is an answer that releases a man from responsibility, well that is just irresponsible. While it may be unfair that a pregnant woman has the extra "out" when it comes to the decision to have a child, is it fair to force that child to be raised by non biological parents because the man doesn't want it? Is it fair to a child to live in a house where two people don't love each other?

So yes it is slightly unfair to the man that they don't have the extra out but they also don't have to carry the baby for 9 months, they are not being forced to raise it, nurture it, and they do not have to go through medical procedure (birth or abortion). Some financial support for the life that they helped create is the least they can do to make sure the child is treated fairly.

In an ideal situation, I would hope that the woman and man could come to an agreement as to the best course of action (to abort, give up for adoption, marry, or raise independently) that is not always the case. But what is the case is that once a child is born that their interests take precedence over anyone else's.

Absolutely it does. Unfortunately, it seems to only apply to one sex here. How come the other gets to benefit from selective hearing? Or rather, they get to utter "Can't feed 'em, no problem, we'll stick the guy with the bill, you feel free to make whatever choice you want, no since getting the man involved in that decision, after all, he's just a walking wallet".




Hmmm, perhaps similar to the 'poor, poor, pitiful me' tones of early women's rights meetings? Did you ever wonder why there are Men's Rights meetings to begin with? As with women, and all other groups being treated unfairly on certain issues--because there was a need. The discussions here certainly point that out.



No one is asking you to. First, the point here is not necessarily about actually allowing men to abort their financial rights--it is more about the inherent unfairness in the decisions leading up to that point. Second, there are many alternatives that wouldn't require society to pay a dime.



No, they want an equal say because they are the parent too. Why is it that they are the parent during the conception, then they aren't for 9 months, and then suddenly they are again, but only until they want a say in how they child is raised, then they're not again? What's fair about that? I can guarentee that if the situation were reversed, women would be screaming from the mountain tops.
(FWIW, it's more than a few dead presidents--20% of your income is typical)



Then we're in agreement--that is all I was trying to point out.



Well, Mrs. P., that's not necessarily true. The man might have wanted the child. In which case, he'd be more than inconvenienced by the abortion, don't you think? Then there's also the fact that this child support buys you very, very little in the way of input into how the child is raised.

We're not arguing here in favor of men getting away scot free. We're arguing in favor of the man being treated fairly and equally trhoughout the whole process. Currently, that is not the case.

Hobbes, I understand what you're trying to say but what I was trying to bring to the thread, and some others have echoed, is that since pregnancy is inherently unequal, then parental rights are going to be inherently unequal as well. There is no perfect solution because most of the work of being pregnant falls on the female, therefore she gets more say. She gets to decide, ultimately, whether to bring the child to term. And while it is unfair for a man who doesn't want a child to be forced to financially support one for 18 years, what is unfair to the man doesn't trumph what is best for the kid. The best that can be stressed to both parties is to know who you sleep with, because that's really as fair a solution to the questions posed in this thread as there's going to get.

All IMHO.

DreamPipEr, thank you for so eloquently saying what I was trying to clumsily get across in my earlier post. Suzy also made this point well.

We have to look at it as fairness to the child.

Just a question for clarification. Since both of you base your reasoning on the idea of what is best for the child. Would you both support laws that forced a young indigent mother to give up her child to a more stable, married, and affluent couple simply because they can provide a better life??

I'm sure you will say this is a stretch, but let's analyze the situation. A man does not want his child, never did. The mother chose to have it and wants to keep it. The man is then sued for child support. So when you all talk about "best interest" of the child, I gather you are saying "best financial interest" So, if it is in society's interest to curb freedom in the realm of child rearing and participation by making the father "financially" contribute to the raising his child, then it can be argued with just the same logic that we can compel an indigent mother to give up her parental rights so a.) we can look out for the best interest of the child and b.) society can be assured it won't be paying for the child.

Now, don't think for a second that I support such a notion, I just think that the reasoning that suggests the government should trample on mens right's in choosing his role in parenting, because of societies "financial" concerns, leaves a gaping hole for us to step through.

Nighttimer said much of my take on this with much more to add. Many posters base their arguments on that a woman has the option of having an abortion, ( so men should also be allowed to opt out).. but this is a right that is debated every year and if it were up to some people that right would be removed. You can get yourself killed or injured just going to an abortion clinic and often have to deal with harassement. In some states clandestine and shady doctors, maybe even not so sanitary conditions because doctors lives are on still the line these days. Its not an open endeavor. Its expensive in some states and cities and still a backwoods operation. So, its not that a woman CAN have an abortion but that she goes through the torment, psychologically and physically to have one, therefore she pays for her initial lack of responsability there. ( having an abortion is not a simple affair) Not all women can bring themselves to have abortions or are against it for religious or other reasons, you should know this before having sex with a woman or take precautions, for cryin out loud, its so simple!

I would like to remind that having an abortion is still held in distain by much of society, but it seems in this thread men would like to use this (shaky and generally looked down upon) female option as (another) excuse to avoid child care responsabilities. There is a pattern, get out of it any way you can and use every possible excuse and no matter what, blame the woman because she is an evil temptress and user. Its so unbelievably cynical. How many are voting pro-choice? Not if your voting the current admin. by any stretch. You want the reality of abortion procedure to come out from under the blanket of hate and distain, vote pro-choice and not religious right wingnuts who would have us all in back alleys with clothes hangers as a solution, or step up to the plate and take care of your kids, or USE PROTECTION.

If a woman decides to go to term she also pays for her decisions (past and present) in more ways than just money, especially if the father is not interested. She will carry, birth and raise. It will take more than 20% of her income as well as most of her time. Few take this decision lightly but some do.(who like babies) Few, if any, do this as a business venture to steal from men (as has been suggested and is really a misogynist and pessimistic viewpoint) because it is a losing proposition, unless he is very rich ( but rich men are usually smarter than to let such a thing happen)

So, if we are to let fathers off scott free, where is the justice for the initial irresponsible act of unprotected sex, which the ultimate result is bringing a human being into the world? I have to agree that the child is of the first concern.

It seems to me some men here are saying they should be able to spread seed around without care of the consequences and not be held accountable in any way because women have a right to have an abortion. That is the reality of what was happening in the past, until men started being held accountable by the courts where it seems to hurt most..their wallet. Not their time, not their freedom, not caring, just money, so Ok, USE PROTECTION.

If millions of men were fighting to keep babies, take care of them or wanting babies that women were aborting then we might see a change in the laws, but the overwhelming incidence is of men wanting nothing to do with any responsability for the act of having unprotected sex, blaming the woman who finds herself pregnant and putting all responsability on her after the fact and 'exiting stage left', sometimes to do the same with another and have quite a few children with different mothers.

The reality of now is 'you play, you pay', and the woman does pay multi-fold no matter what she chooses. The current court decisions are making men think twice, as it should be. Birth control, conception and child raising (out of wedlock) has largely been a female expense and a female and societal problem, BC was not covered under health insurance either for a long time (maybe now). Funny that Viagra is. This might make one think and move to change the status quo. Not likely when it comes to female concerns. Getting hard-on drugs is health insurance covered, getting Birth control is not? BC costs about $30-40 a month, viagra costs $10-$15 a pill and they push it. What is wrong with this picture?

Its not easy to have a living being in your body, whether you wanted it or not, were ready or not, and then carelessly kill it or give it away. Its harder than a man opening up his wallet and giving up his hard earned cash, if you can believe that or not. An unexpected pregnancy is no easy ride for a woman.

Look at it like this, open your wallet, there are dollars and there's a condom. Which would you rather use or lose?

Worst case scenario... Maybe the woman wants a baby from you and you dont know that, (which means you are having sex with women you dont know very well), maybe she wants to trap you and use you as a 'cash cow', so, you have to know what YOU want or DO NOT want before the act and take precautions for our own welfare. Its really that simple, its personal responsability in most circumnstances- which most of you would argue for in any other case but where penises and sexual satisfaction are concerned. Many sexually active men do not have bastard children floating around because they have made this a norm. (and theyre likely STD free as well)

The overwhelming evidence is that men do not want babies but want a lot of sex, so YOU have to assure you dont make them. Women usually LIKE babies, its genetically wired in us. You cant get rid of thousands of years of genetic wiring of propagation of the species because in 20 years abortion is semi-legal and try to blame women for your or their sexual proclivity. Its also genetically wired for men to desire to spread seed with as many women as possible, so you can stay with the genetic program or USE PROTECTION if you want to preserve your financial freedom. We are (supposedly) more civilized so both parties must take responsability for their actions and its not a one way street.
Even if a woman didnt want a baby before..once she see's that test and knows its growing inside, once a woman sees that sonogram, life is forever changed no matter what she thought it would be. Unfair? Sure. Life is unfair to children whos dads enjoyed the moment then abandoned them and thats been going on for too long as well and society picks up the tab. Dont you conservatives just hate that? So USE PROTECTION and vote to have sex education in schools, not neolithic abstinance programs which dont educate.
Like it or not, the male is going to have to face the facts of his own reproductive body and sexual responsability to some extent, if he does not want to pay for a baby or several. The days of flagrant spreading of seed without accountability are over, back alley or front alley abortions or not. Males can try to defend their rights of flagrant sexual behavior and view the results as 'unfair' , but its a weak sell. Everyone knows how babies are made, and if they dont its because the right wing religious have thwarted education, so maybe they should pay for the unwanted IE: WELFARE. Or maybe, like Mrs P said (in sarcasm) , sell the unwanted children into slavery, then you men would not have to have the least concern for your progeny, which it seems in your ultimate selfishness you do not care about anyway, but you do care when it comes to sticking it in, dont you?

Id like to make a note here about adoption. Just because a child is put up for adoption does not guarantee a good life. I was adopted as a newborn. My adopted father was an alchoholic and both parents turned out to be child abusers in the extreme. They were great on paper and terrible in reality and very good liars. They adopted to save their marriage, selfish and ultimately wrong. My mother had a nervous breakdown during the divorce and is now dead. I dont speak to my father at all and think the world will be better off when he leaves it.
I think I would have preferred to be raised by my birth mother no matter what she had to go through ( I can only imagine that of course) but it was the typical 1960's scenario, dad took off and she was ostrasized for being pregnant out of wedlock with no recourses. The end of that story was not a pat nor pretty solution for me.
Adopted children often go through life wondering and missing something and feel alone and the states dont make it easy to find birth parents, but thats the stuff of another thread.

Edited to add: I find it interesting that people who may be pro-life or at least believe in and vote for religious conservatives against abortion and sex education in schools AND welfare are also arguing against male responsability for pregnancy. Quite the irony. What corners you paint women into with nowhere to turn then call 'unfair' when society needs to make someone accountable, and not just the females.

I am just curious Artemise, would you support this if it could only be decided by the judge presiding over the court and certain burdens of proof had to be met? If it was conditional and difficult to obtain?

I basically read your arguement as saying that it is never ok for the man to skip out, but surely you can think of a few scenarios where he is justified in doing so. I have always stated it should be conditional.

Just as an aside, I also think that suggesting abortion is the only alternative here is a bit unfair. I have read plenty of people saying that it is in the best interest of the child to get child support from the father. Wouldn't it be better for the child to be adopted by two parents capable of supporting it and dedicating time to raising it?

Of course having two loving parents capable of providing for the child is better than having one who cannot. Likewise, having two married, loving, intelligent, happy people to raise a child is better than having two cohabitating, angry, stupid, unhappy people raising a child. What is your point? That we should bring the feds in to confiscate all newborn infants of single women who are unable to pay for their prenatal care? How about all other indigent homes parented by less than ethereal beings? Children are taken away if they are neglected, not because the mother is single and working a minimum wage job that might not pay all of the expenses of child rearing. Are you truly suggesting that it would be equitable to expect the woman to turn over her newborn to two strangers, so the birth father could be saved the expense of providing some financial support to his offspring? I would applaud a woman for doing so in the interest of the child, but I certainly wouldn't chalk it up to another easy "choice".

Which is all beside the point anyway. A woman might be totally capable of providing for the newborn, and need no assistance whatsoever in the beginning (hence, no newborn confiscation). Newborns require very little...just some diapers, sleepers, and a breast to feed on. They can (initially) be taken almost anywhere with the ease one would carry a football.

Children become increasingly expensive as they grow. A single woman might have absolutely no idea how expensive a proposition child-rearing can be. The daycare alone runs about 1000 a month. It’s too late for adoption then.

I am of the belief that unless a biological parent is unfit to be a parent that it is in their best interest to be with their biological parent. If the mother or father is unfit there are already steps in place where the child can be removed from the home. The best possible solution is that both parents want to be together and be able to provide the child with a stable and loving home. At minimum that the parents can decide together what is in the best interest of the child and come to a mutual agreement. In cases where the parent (that wants the child) is fit to be a parent, can provide the child with a loving home, then a few hundred dollars a month to support the child is not a lot to ask of the other parent who has no interest in parenting (or maybe has an interest then they can be a part of the child's life). So since my reasoning that a child should never be removed from a biological parent (unless they are unfit) then I see this as in the best interest of the child. There is no easy answer to this and it isn't a black and white issue. There are so many factor's involved and so many scenario's that can affect what is in the child's interest. There is no best solution for a parent that wants a child versus a parent that doesn't want a child but unfortunately the men get 1 less out when they decide to have sex with a woman. Biology also plays its part. As nighttimer said:

Maybe women should just start fighting for their right to not be the child bearer's. Since that is unfair too!

Regarding adoption, I have friends that were adopted, they were happy with their non biological parents but had a desire to find their biological parent. They needed to know why their biological parents didn't want them and it affected their own emotional well being. In some instances, they found their biological mom or dad and realized that they were better off in the long run. In other cases they didn't see that. For those they live with knowing that their biological mom or dad didn't want them, there wasn't a reasonable reason (other then disrupting their lives) and they live with that emotional pain. I have one friend, though, that never got to have adoptive parents. She lived in several foster homes (and they weren't all that nice to her) throughout her minority years. She later found out that her biological mom was a drug addict and her biological dad was a convict. She is a wonderful person (despite what could have happened) but her ability to trust other's has been severely compromised. She never had a loving home, never knew what the idea of a family is and now at 43 she lives a life alone. To be honest, if I wasn't the type of friend that I am, I bet you that we wouldn't continue to be friends. She probably would have written me off as another person that entered and left her life. I am the one that has to make an extra effort when we get together. I've been friends with her for a few years and when I found out that she spends her holiday's alone I started inviting her to celebrate with my family. Only once has she accepted. Since I know her history, which didn't come out right away, I am aware that she needs that special attention that so many other's may not give. While adoption can be a good a right decision it is not always. So when I hear this rush to "well the baby can be given up for adoption" I am not inclined to agree.

Yes, it does take two to tango. However, (generally speaking)
men are quicker to involve themselves in casual sex. So, my
point is that they could be a little more careful about getting to know
a lady before they engage in intercourse.

Men and women view sex differently. So, a man should
not be surprised if the short-term romance that he views as a
fling may be considered a serious relationship to a woman. That is
why many women, when they become pregnant, want to keep
the child. And many man, when faced with a pregnancy, want
to run the other direction. They were both viewing the relationship
in a different light.

People who have unprotected sex are irresponsible to begin with.
So, it is no surprise that a pregnant woman, who does not have
the experience or foresight to make adequate choices, who didn't
have the sense to use protection, will make yet another bad choice:
to become a mom under the worst circumstances, and in doing
so, bring the irresponsible partner along for the ride (financially).

The bottom line is: the man could have avoided such a predicament.
He played roulette and lost!! It's fair.

That is absolutely not my point and I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.

Most people here are saying "no, a father should absolutely have to pay child support" and others are saying "a father should not have to pay it is unfair". I am taking the middle ground stating that there are circumstances where a father could be justified in rejecting the child and the decision there should be left up to the expert opinion of a judge and/or jury.

In other words, there isn't really any equity in the system right now. I understand that inherently that is the case since women actually give birth but if it is actually the welfare of the child you care about then both sides should be considered.

CJ, perhaps one of AD's lawyer's needs to step in for this. But it is my understanding that such a system is already in place. It is up to the judge to decide what and how much the dad has to pay (or not pay at all). The judge though has to put the child first when making such a decision.

Artemise,

I would like to commend you on an excellent post (couldn't find any specific section to quote--it was all very relevant and eloquent). I just wanted to note that I don't really see anyone here arguing specifically for the ability for men to abort their financial responsibility. It is a responsbility, and not one they should be able to get out of. As I stated in an earlier post, I don't really think getting out of it is the real issue--it is just a tool being employed to be more involved in other areas (abortion rights, child custody arrangements, child support inequities). These issues are all intertwined--it is difficult to single out one and deal with it separately (in fact, doing so is how we got to the current point).

I do agree that the instances being cited here in favor of aborting financial rights are in the very small minority--there are too many men running around 'spreading seed'. However, our society is not built on the premise that we should punish the innocent right along with the guilty, regardless of their number. The issue of entrapment and deceit is an issue--having a lifetime of child support forced upon you is a huge consequence to bear for that. I find it a little bit frustrating that this aspect of the issue is being so casually disregarded (just as I'm sure Artemise and others find it very frustrating that the other side of the coin isn't being given more credence ).

As I stated previously:



Shouldn't committing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the welfare of the child buy a little more than that? I can't think of any other situation in which one party is required to commit so many resources into a situation that they have so little authority in. Is it really all 'just for the child'? If so, isn't it in the interest of the child to have both parents more involved in the process?

DreamPipEr:



This wouldn't be so much of an issue if that was how the process worked. Basically, there are state standards put forth that remove the amount from discussion. This amount is then the predetermined amount. There's very little input into the process--your income statements are subpoenaed, an amount is found on a chart, and you pay it. No input into the process--one of the reasons 'men' are so upset about it. Then, afterwards, there's no verification that all (any?) of it is actually spent on your child. Another point of frustration.

O.K. Let's take a look at some of the arguments here.

Artemise


DaffyGrl


P.E.


Doclotus


Nighttimer


And I would expect these arguments...if you were pro-life. Are any of you pro-life?? You see, the way I see it, a woman knows, as well as a man, what happens if she lays down and decides to have a little fun in the sack that she can get pregnant, so why should she be able to have an abortion. And please don't tell me that "It's a woman's body" is the meat and potatoes of your argument ,if you have a pro choice stance.

I'm pro-choice. My reasoning is as follows: I believe that some one should not bear a responsibility of a child, simply because they made a mistake of having sex with out protection. I recognize that a fetus will eventually grow to be a baby but until the time that we can extract a fetus from a woman and allow for the baby to grow, abortion seems to a choice that should be available.

This logic easily transfers over to the opposite sex. Ask yourself and with all intellectual honesty answer this question: Why do majority women have an abortion?
For me the answer is as follows

For economical reasons(not enough money) a woman doesn't feel she is ready to have and care for a baby.
For reasons of maturity(she is too young/too old) a female feels she isn't ready for child birth.
For social status reasons( a catch-all field..career, school, embarrassment...etc) she does not want to give birth to a baby.

Is anyone here going to suggest that a man will not want to be free from responsibility for the exact same reasons?

Another point people are making which I don't really relevant, but I'd like to address is "An abortion isn't easy or a simple procedure" No one is saying that it is easy, but it is an escape from the outcome of having a night of fun. If having the baby was easier than abortion then there wouldn't even be an abortion debate, because people would just hae the kids. Abortion is nothing else but an escape from the mistake that a woman makes by having unprotected sex. She gets herself pregnant as much as the man gets her pregnant. She doesn't want to be pregnant or have a baby so she has an abortion. And I believe that she should be able to choose, which leads me to my next thought....

Yes it takes two to tango, but in the case that abortion is legal and the father does not want the child, the two becomes one. At the initial point of pregnancy the women could terminate the child, she alone chooses not to. At birth she can give the child up for adoption, assuming the man mae his lack of interest known, she alone can choose to put the baby up for adoption, she chooses not to. That baby is not stuck with her because of the decision of him and her, that baby is with her because her decisions ALONE. So saying that she should be held accountable for the baby alone.

The problem I see is that when some people, who happen to be pro-choice, disagree with a man's right to not be held responsible, their argument's are stomping out a woman's right to choose as well, save the reason "it's my body", which as I said earlier, is the weakest of all reasons for a woman to be allowed to have an abortion.

Now I can see there is another argument being put forth that comes strictly from a economic or financial point of view. They aren't necessarily arguing that the man should not be able to to abort financially because of responsibility, but more because the burden would shift to society because of his mistake. I, along with others have found this to be a bad argument and brought up forced adoption.

Mrs. P


No Mrs P, so that society can be saved money in the long run. If a mother economically does not have the capabilities, and there is a family who does, willing to take the responsibility, then it will save the State money. I admit I'm not for putting, the financial needs of the state in front of a person's parental rights, but that is what you seem to be saying when talking about this issue.
You and others seem to be saying... If a woman wants to shirk the cost and responsibilities of having a baby, that is O.K... But a man can not do the same thing, because that would cost the state money. Which leaves the impression that the only reason you justify this unfair stance and encroachment on a man's right to be free of a burden is because financial interests of the state and society as a whole. Am I correct in stating this or way off base?? If I am correct, then wouldn't it stand to that reasoning that when society has a financial reason to encroach on a indigent women's right's to raise her child they should do so for money.

While I understand what you're trying to say, I wouldn't have said it in quite that manner. It still takes sperm, a little thing unknown to an unpenetrated female's body (unless you're the Virgin Mary), to conceive a child. But yes, a woman who goes out and has unprotected sex, especially with a male she does not know, shares that responsibility. Somebody needs to think of possible consequences beyond that moment of passionate abandon before it takes place.

For the record, I am pro-life, but I recognize that there are pro-choice people who also understand the importance of taking personal responsibility.

Even accepting that a woman might have her child taken from her in the interests of saving the state money how do you reconcile the case of caring for a child after the first year? Suppose the mother has the money at the time of birth, and wants to keep her baby....loses her job the next year and doesn't have any options for gainful employment. Judging by the 100,000+ children in the foster care system, it would seem babies are only a hot commodity the first year, but raising a child takes a full 18.

Incidentally, Cube Jockey, you are right, I was putting words in your mouth. I apologize.

That's my point...you don't. You don't infringe on her right before the baby is born, you don't infringe when the baby is born, you don't infringe when a baby is one. Like I said the impression I got from your argument is that because the state may have to flip the bill for the mother choosing. on her OWN, to have and raise the baby, this is the reason that a father should not enjoy the rights a woman has to relinquish his responsibilities. I am merely throwing something in the mix I think you would be against to show how "the state saving money" isn't really a good reason to say a father should not be able to abort an unwanted fetus.

We expect the mother to take care of the child and pay for its needs when it is born, droop. The taxpayers take up the expense if the parent is unable. If she (or the father) cannot the state helps out in the interest of the child, not as a special gift to her. She is expected to foot the bill if she has the means, unless she finds someone else to usurp her roll and raise the child and foot the bill (and care) instead of her.

I have already brought up the difference between the two. To recap: A mother's abortion results in NO CHILD. Hence, no child's interests at stake. A man's decision to terminate his obligation still results in the birth of a child, with interests at stake. And, yes, I don't wish to pay if the parents of that child are able. I will pay for the basics in the interest of the child if the parents cannot. Pretty clear we're at an impasse here.

Maybe we are at an impasse, but as I read what you are saying outside of you coming to the conclusion that men shouldn't enjoy a similar right as women, I don't disagree with what you are saying. I totally understand the differences that you point out. I know we expect the mother to take care of the needs and that society should pay only when she is unable. There is no real disagreement. I'm not here suggesting that a father be able to just bail at any point and not have to expect to continue supporting a child. I'm talking about giving a man the same right as a woman, at the same time the woman has the ability to choose. At the time that a woman finds out she is pregnant she should be made to tell the father. At this time the father has maybe a couple of weeks to decide whether he want to be a father. Now a woman, armed with the added knowledge, has to decide does she want to have the baby. Again we agree this should be her decision alone. But at this point in time, because I am pro choice, I believe his and her choices should be respected here, equally. Yet, as people are saying, nature has made us unequal by making the woman the only one who's body is used to create the baby. Because of this I believe that the women should have the final say. If the father wants the baby and the women doesn't she should abort. If the father does not want the baby and the woman does she should be allowed to have the baby.

Now if there is an impasse it is at this point.

You seem to be saying at this point if the women decides to go forward "Oh well, too bad, tough luck for the man that didn't want to be a father"

I am saying if the woman goes forward to have and raise the baby "oh well tough luck for the women, have a happy life."
My reasoning comes from the fact that I believe a woman should have the power to make this decision because it is her body. But with power comes responsibility and with responsibility comes accountability. He has already stated he doesn't want to be responsible for a child, if she decides to go forward there is nothing wrong with society saying "In the interest of fairness, you go forward alone in this endeavor." You see after this point it is estalished that there will be only one parent because only one(the one that matters) desired to be a parent. Therefore the parent will be held responsible.

Not exactly. The perfect scenario would be the mother-doesn't-need-any-support scenario, either because of help from her family, adoption, another partner who is willing to help care for the child, or she justs has a great job that allows her to work and pay for childcare without ever having to ask for money from the father who didn't want his child. That might be a tall order over an 18 year period.

That isn't what you are saying. You are actually saying, "oh well tough luck for the child and woman. Have a happy life". Appreciate the difference?

It's a bad situation, I agree. I think the support should be minimal, but there if the child needs it. There is one option beyond birth control (or running away) on the man's part. Before a couple enters into a sexual relationship, they need to have a talk about what they will do if the birth control fails. A man should know if the woman he is with is going to abort his baby or have his baby at the beginning. People can lie, but knowing his partner will give him an idea as to the risk, and people who feel very fundamentally different about it should probably not be bumping uglies to begin with. I've been with my husband for almost 14 years, and he has known my position on this since the beginning. He knows there is no way I would abort, and he wouldn't expect me to. He knew my opinion from the very first date, which actually turned out to be the night I moved in with him.

Women currently have the right to choose. A woman chooses who she has sex with. She has a right to say no, midcourse, and if the man doesn't stop she may charge him with date rape.

With that right to choose she has the responsibility over her body too. The responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy. This responsibility is hers and hers alone; not the male's.

Having complete control over her body, advantages a male doesn't have over her body, and having control of who she chooses to have enter her body, if she becomes pregnant and the male does not want to assume fatherhood over what he assisted her in creating, he should be released of the responsibility.

Men should not have to refrain from sex with a woman, with or without the use of a condom, to prevent himself from becoming a father. Nor should he be forced to become sterile. To say that a man assumes fatherhood simply by having sex is wrong. Why? Because women do not have to assume this same responsibility. Women can choose abortion, men cannot.

Again, women can have sex and choose not to become a parent, a man cannot. What is fair about this?

To force a man to become a moneymaking machine because he has sex with a woman is unfair. This would be to say that his body must be in the workplace, earning money for a child, not himself. He has to be where an employer says and when. He must do this to pay for a child he doesn't want. This is also unfair considering the right a woman has to choose and the responsibility that comes with that right. Her body is her own.

Women should not be allowed to choose for another person apart from herself and what she carries inside her; she should not be allowed to make a choice for a man she chose to have intercourse with. Period. She is no way a victim. She chooses her sexual partners, her use of contraceptives or not to use them. If she chooses contraceptives that didn't work, she chooses whether or not to bring a child into the world.

Since men don't have these choices, they should not be forced to pay a dime unless they do so willingly, for a woman's choice to bring life into the world.

Fathers bail out all the time, even with court orders to pay support.
Enforcing child support orders is another problem that ends up riding
on the backs of every tax-payer:

A total of $11.9 billion was paid in child support in 1991, $5.8 billion less than the amount due....



Let's say a woman is 6 weeks into a pregnancy. It is the time she needs
to decide whether or not she should keep the child. The man says, "No
thanks. I'm outa here." He moves on, leaving her to make the ultimate
decision, knowing he won't be a part of it. Who's to stop him from planting
his seeds elsewhere, and often, because it is ohhh sooo easy to do.
There is no zygote resting in his womb, awaiting his/her fate...

It would be much more beneficial to society if men (and women) would
practice safe-sex. The use of condoms could/would greatly diminish the
amount of un-planned pregnancies..

Edited to add: If men were given the option of easily "opting out"
of fatherhood, in the early stages of pregnancy, the abortion rates would
inevitably rise, as would the number of single-parent families...

This is rapidly turning into a "boys will be boys so let them have their toys" argument.

If I buy into your contention xild (I don't but just for giggles let's say I do) then if a women gets pregnant it's her choice, her baby her problem. If she's walking down the street, trips, lands on some poor guy's genitals and drops a baby nine months later, then that's just her hard cheese, right?

And to further extrapolate your intriguing theory that men have no responsibility whatsoever in this mating ritual because THEY can't get pregnant and everything is on the woman (darn Eve for eating that apple), should a caring and thoughtful and throughly prepared woman offer a gentleman the condom of his choice before they do the horizontal mambo?

There seems to be a greater value placed on the man's right to keep his wallet in his pants than where he puts his naughty parts. There's a great deal of importance placed upon a man's freedom to turn his back on his obligations and put all the weight on Mommy's (and the state welfare agencies) shoulders.

It somehow reminds me of "Lover's Rock" by the Clash:

Yeh, you must treat your lover girl right
If you wanna make lover's rock
You must know a place you can kiss to make lovers rock
'Cause everybody knows it's a crying shame
But nobody knows the poor babie's name
When she forgot that thing that she had to swallow

You Western man, you're free with your seed
When you make lovers rock
But woops! there goes the strength that you need
To make real cool lovers rock
'Cause a genuine lover takes off his clothes
And he can make a lover in a thousand go's
An' she don't need that thing that she had to swallow

Doomed planet



O.K. I agree



First of all I want to thank you for making me learn a new word. I looked up zygote, but, in truth, still have know idea what you are saying on to your scenario...

What kind of guy are we talking about here a serial rapist. The women is the one who is supposed to stop him from planting his seed in her. What is she a victim of his sexual prowess?? Tell him no, or no glove no love, or whatever other idea that comes to min to keep his seed from getting in her. Damn, doomed planet what kind of internet stud are you, that makes getting sex "ohhh sooo easy"?? Though it has never come up I'm all for making the man pay for half of the abortion. If I had to compromise I would even be willing to say the man should have to pay it all since the women gets all the physical pain.



Again agreed



Just exactly how did you work this out. They can't both raise. If there are more abortions there are less single mothers because there are less babies carried to term. Of course they could both increase if there was a increase in pregnancies which would indicate an increase of sex, but I can't see how this is likely. Men weren't getting any before, but now that women know they'll be solely responsible if they have a baby, just causes women in the U.S. to say "Come and get it!!1" Naaah, I don't think so. But maybe, just maybe, that is my true undercover agenda.... hahahahah

Mrs. P


I can see what you are saying and in a way I am saying just that, but no more than I am saying "screw the baby" by supporting abortion in the first place. The embryo grows to a fetus a fetus to a baby. All it takes is time. If we lived in a world that didn't allow for abortions, I wouldn't even be making this argument. It seems to me that maybe you are ignoring the sequence of events. Like I said, I only support a man doing this within the first trimester, assuming that he is promptly told, the same stage that a women can abort. IF he says no then it is not him screwing a baby it's him saying tough luck to the fetus, what is exactly what the woman is currently allowed to do. Now from this stage if the woman wants to go forward she would be doing so with the knowledge that she does so alone. So it would be SHE who has brought a baby into the world without a father, and it would be SHE who decides to keep the child even if it is not in the child's best interest. And it should be society's duty to provide, because society has allowed for her to have sole power and decision making in arena of life.

How so? Why isn't it about women having their toys because they're silly women, after all, and cannot bear the responsibility that goes with the rights they possess? As a woman, I disagree. And that's what you are proposing? I try to stay away from unreasonable arguments like "boys will be boys" because I don't think that's the real issue, I think that's the way we look at men as a society. I don't buy it but you may continue to do so because I too will make sweeping statements about women.



For giggles, let's just say that, yes, if she gets pregnant, and the father would rather not be the father, then yes, it was her choice to sleep with the man, her body is pregnant, and she is now calling the shots. Every one.



I didn't read this entire thread and I don't know your intriguing theory but let me guess, the evil man should have worn a rubber, case closed. He is now going to have to pay the price for his evil deed of having sexual relations (those darn devil's lips...) whether he likes it or not.

Let me explain something very carefully to you. Women have many reliable forms of birth control from which to choose. They also have the right to choose whether or not to have a child. Oh wait, I did explain that. You are being rude. Silly me.



A wallet has nothing to do with my argument. A wallet is an object. A person's body is another matter. What one does with that body is what is at stake here. Where the man's body has to be eight hours a day, all workweek long: after he didn't get the right to control the sexual outcome nor does he have control of his body after the woman chooses to have a child. This, to me, it unfair.

And with the condom being a good protection against sexually transmittable diseases, but not always a good method of birth control, it's not the man's responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The person who needs to control her body is the woman. She needs to protect it and not assume her lack of responsibility will be picked up by the man.

And, in the unfortunate event that a man is not a mindreader, and a woman tells him, "Baby, it's cool, I'm protected" and she isn't, then certainly a man should not be forced to raise any one of her five children, each conceived by different fathers.

Oh, no, I'm not saying this happens all the time, but it happens. Check into the statistics of mothers of more than one children in the welfare system. It's certainly not unheard of.... It's not very responsible of the woman who behaves in this way, now, is it?

A woman should refrain from sexual intercourse if she isn't prepared to accept the consequences of her actions. Either that, or she should be sterilized.

We women seem to want it both ways. And yet we always refer to the male as the one who can't keep "it" in his pants; and he's always the evil one simply because he doesn't want a child. Men should refrain from having sex unless they want children, while women can be sexually active because they have choices.

That never made sense to me. I never contacted a man to help me choose whether or not I would have a child. And unless he wanted to, I wouldn't ask him to raise my child. Actually, I think that's an aging and old way of thinking.

As a rule, women are not stupid victims of men. Do get over it.

I think that both men and women have choices in this, but they are different choices.

A man has two sets of choices:
1. Do I have sex or not with this woman?
2. If I do, and a baby results from it, do I choose to support the child financially, emotionally and in person (by being a "father" with all its ramifications) ; or, do I only support it financially?

Note, the first choice is the only one that involves the mother.

A woman has many more choices, the pertinent ones for this debate being:
1. Do I have sex with this man or not? (the first time the man enters the debate)
2. If I do, and it results in a pregnancy, do I carry it to term, or have a termination?
3. If I carry it to term, do I raise the child myself or put it up for adoption?
4. If I choose to raise the child myself, how much help from the father of the child do I want compared to how much he is prepared to give (the second time the father enters the debate)? If there is conflict between what he & I want, we need to resolve it somehow, probably in court.
If I want him involved and he doesn't, his financially responsibility to our child doesn't go away, but it might go up, because in effect he is transferring his other responsibilities and benefits to me against my will.
If he wants in, but I don't want him around, his financial responsibility still doesn't go away, but it might go down, because, in effect, I am taking his other responsibilities and benefits from him against his will.

Note that I do not think that the neither the mother nor the father individually should get to decide that the father is not involved AT ALL. I think this should only be possible if they BOTH agree, since the father's responsibility is not to the mother, but to the child, and the effect of this decision would be that the mother agrees to take on the father's responsibilities as well as her own.

I don't see a way of making this more "fair" for the man, as his "fairness" can only be achieved at the expense of someone else. We aren't talking about a level playing field here - we are trying to be as fair as possible given the loaded deck that is mammalian biology.

We are never going to have true equality in reproduction unless we can at some point genetically modify ourselves to become a race of unisexual hermaphrodites that can all both bear children and father them. Or maybe asexually bud them off like aphids or something. Or aim, therefore, should be as much equity - evenhandedness across all three parties - as we can muster. Importantly, there are only three parties to consider after the baby is born[b].

But this all boils down to one thing, for me. If a man thinks that his opinion on whether a pregnancy should go to term or not should even be admissible into the woman's decision-making process, [b]he should marry her before having sex.

I don't take a particularly dim view of sex outside marriage (in fact it's the only sort I can get at the moment ) but I do think it negates the right of a man to have his opinions on any potential abortion actually listened to. And even in marriage, he doesn't get the right to make the decision to terminate or not himself, unless the woman is somehow incapable (through injury, unconsciousness, insanity, and so on), just like any othe surgical procedure carried out on someone else. I might want my girlfriend to have a nosejob or breast enlargement, and I might be prepared to pay for it, but unless I can persuade her to consent, it isn't going to happen.

An abortion is a far more serious matter, not to mention a more serious procedure, so why would her consent become unimportant just because I think it should?

I don't really know exactly what a zygote is either. I just
thought it would be cool to throw some big words around...



Not a serial rapist, perse. Just your average, red-blooded, hetero-sexual
male. It's a man's natural urge. Yet, some men go with those urges a little
too casually.



Well, some men can be very persuasive.



That's always been my motto. However, many men do not look to themselves
to be the "protection" barers. Many men rely on their female counterparts
to supply the love and the glove (or whatever other type of b.c.).



lol.... It would become even more casual of an experience (for men) if there
was an easy way out of unwanted fatherhood. It would become "ohhh so easy"
for men to be even more promiscuous (if that's possible).



What a trooper. You'll pay for the whole cost of the procedure. What woman
could ask for more?



Hmmmm. I guess time would tell. Maybe men would try harder to "score,"
thus, increasing unwanted pregnancies. Or, maybe women would be more
cautious about unprotected sex. Only time could tell........

You know I need to read the profiles to the left of posts more often... Doomed Planet just screams man to me, but there it is clear as day... You are a female!!! Sorry about calling you a stud, but you can still be a studess

Forgive me; I thought this was a discussion about men and women who were not married.

I would tend to agree that married men are more promiscuous than married women.

I don't think it caters to either married or unmarried. I think the circumstances where a man would want to abort his child fiancially are more likely going to happen in an unmarried arrangement.

Not necessarily. Hypothetical situation: Couple is contemplating divorce. They have two children already, but she finds out she is pregnant again. The father wishes to only pay child support for two children, and tells her to abort, or place the kid up for adoption upon delivery, because he doesn't intend to pay support for the third. Under the 'father aborts' policy, this should be acceptable.

Edited to add: It would be interesting to see how the father intends to ignore the third child during visitation. Pretty good illustration of the fallacy of this suggestion. The child exists. Ignoring him/her will not make him/her go away.

Several points here. First, the child's interests are absolutely at stake in the abortion decision, but that is another thread. But, more importantly, I'm not really sure how society's having to pay anything became the issue here. As has been stated, there are far more parents seeking adoption than there are children up for adoption. Everyone here seems to agree that the perfect solution is that the child be brought up by two loving parents. (yes, Artemise, there may be exceptions here, just as there are exceptions to the original parents being 'good' parents. I'm willing to bet you'd find a much higher level of caring amongst adoptive parents than you would amongst married couples, since in too many of those cases the child, although kept, was still unwanted. But I don't think this is really relevant to the issue being discussed.) There seems general concensus here that people shouldn't going around having children they can't afford. If fiscal issues are the real problem here, then adoption completely solves that issue for all parties involved.




Again, I don't think the real issue here is letting men get out of child support--the real issue here is allowing men to be more involved in all the other aspects of the child. From the abortion decision to child custody to support arrangements, there is still too much of the perception of women as nurtured and man as financial support. This notion has essentially been discarded by society, but these other laws have not kept pace--they still are based on the old-fashioned notions. It is because they are 'second-class' citizens in all these other decisions that men are upset at having to bear the financial burden--not because they simply want to spread their seed without consequences. If the women here thought about, I think they would see that this issue is very condescending to them as well, as it reinforces stereotypes I think most of them would want to go away.




Not really. It's an 'Why should I have to pay for decisions I have so little control over' argument. The emphasis is not on the paying, it's on the lack of input into the process (both before and perhaps even more importantly, after the birth). Fix that, and the paying issue goes away.

Allow me to share a personal story that explains this point. I am currently separated. My daughter's mom had been busy running around looking at schools for my daughter. We are in an area where there are excellent public schools, and the private school we had been sending her to didn't seem to offer any advantage over these schools. However, whenever I suggested that we look at public schools, freeing up the additional money for other activities such as after-school programs, I was told 'What do I care, I'd still end up having to pay the same amount.' This is the frustration--having to pay fully for decisions that we have no involvement