Responsibility Begins at Conception..... Preglimony??

[Little Star]

NYT's Opiniom Page:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/opinion/time-for-pregnancy-support-alimony.html?ref=opinion

FOR most of human history, a woman who became pregnant after sleeping with more than one partner had no way of definitively knowing the identity of the man with whom she had conceived. Likewise, a man whose lover became pregnant had no way of knowing for sure whether his or another man’s DNA was gestating inside her.

Since the 1970s it has been possible to genetically link a father and his baby with increasing levels of accuracy. Then, a test using amniotic fluid let us test a baby’s DNA before birth, but the procedure increased the risk of miscarriage. Now a prenatal blood test has made the process far easier. Since a small amount of fetal DNA is present in a pregnant woman’s blood, the pregnancy can be genetically linked to her partner through a simple blood draw from the woman’s arm.

One of the potential ramifications is that men might be called upon to help support their pregnant lovers before birth, even if the pregnancy is ultimately terminated or ends in miscarriage. They might be asked to chip in for medical bills, birthing classes and maternity clothes, to help to cover the loss of income that often comes with pregnancy, or to contribute to the cost of an abortion.

Of course, plenty of men already treat the costs of pregnancy as a shared responsibility. But some do not, leaving the woman to shoulder the burdens alone.

Need some opinions on this.... what do you think? Please read the entire opinion piece at the link.

[notadmblnd]

1. I think if people don't want to have babies they should use protection or keep it in their pants

This day and age, there is no reason to bring an unwanted child into this world. And yes, fathers should be just as accountable as the mother.

[uppityperson]

8. Contraceptives fail.

[notadmblnd]

9. yes it does sometimes, but if both parties take responsibility for BC

say a condom/male and spermicide/female- and thats the minimum. It could be pill and condom or depo shot and condom or iud and condom then the likelyhood of BC failing is almost zero. A couple of those morning after pills kept in the medicine cabinet of both the male and female wouldn't hurt either. I don't know why anyone having cheap meaningless sex would have it without a condom anyway? Just the risk of contracting an STD from a stranger is reason enough to use a condom. There really is no reason for only one party to have responsibility for preventing an unwanted child.

Other than that, if both parties keep their pants on that will ensure that no unwanted children will come into the world.

BTW, I'm all for cheap meaningless sex, just have it safely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. It is long past time for a male oral contraceptive.

Here's a 10 year old article about the imminent introduction of a male pill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/ns/health-sexual_health/t/male-birth-control-pill-soon-reality/

[Little Star]

4. Why haven't men been demanding just such a thing?.....

I would think it would save many of them from having to bear the burden of child support, no?

[snot]

3. Women bear more than their share of the physical burden; men shd at least share the monetary.

[uppityperson]

5. My 1st thought was addressed, but is still a concern to me. What say would it give them as far as

abortion or even prenatal care? If they want to share the responsibility, does that mean men could dictate what pregnant women eat, drink, live, etc? Aside from the abortion issue, what responsibility rights would this give them?

[boston bean]

6. I agree, that it is not a good idea.

The good ole $$$ already holds to much power over many women and their situations in relationships.

Making legislation that makes men pay for something would in turn give them to much of a voice in the decision making. The woman needs to be able to make these decisions for herself and what is best for her.

This here is basically saying that the man has as much interest in this as the woman. I do not think that is a good thing for womens reproductive choice.

[uppityperson]

7. Only way it would work is if it were comparable to child support, which doesn't have any

other rights attached to it. Even then, it rubs me the wrong way. I can understand having a man monetarily responsible for his offspring, but see doing it pre-birth as setting a really bad precedent.

However, I will read what others have to say and consider it.

[boston bean]

10. It is a conundrum, I am open to others thoughts as well... nt

[TreasonousBastard]

11. This might need an entirely new take, one...

actually taken from some primitive tribes.

Obviously, women take on a disproportionate amount of child rearing, from pregnancy and birth to actual care. Various societies have tried to work this out, with various degrees of success in trying to balance the physical, economic and social effects on the men and women of the tribe, nation, whatever... Modern science hasn't helped as much as it could while complicating things with in vitro and other techniques to thoroughly mix up genetic matter.

Maternity is pretty obvious, but it's my understanding that marriage evolved to certify paternity. Your wife gets pregnant-- it's yours. No more questions.

Now we can find out that what we suspected can be proven and half the pregnancies are with unmarried women anyway, which completely screws up the historical need for marriage.

Which brings me to several stone-age South American tribes I've heard tell of. Can't remember who they are, but I hear tell everyone screws around. Couples do pair off, as couples will, and the cultural antecedents for this may be more for fun than equity, but the way they look at it now is that since no one knows who the fathers are, all the males in the tribe are responsible for the care of the all the kids.

I doubt anyone will get too far throwing out all our family law and a few thousand years of history to make rutting about the law of the land, but we could start amending family law to rely less on the family but more on society to raise our kids.

Is this sounding like "It Takes a Village"? Yeah, well bummer that that idea got a bad rap, but it's really the only way we can go from here. All over Europe the whole town takes an interest in your kids and the whole country helps pay for them-- that tribal responsibility with less sex (but, ummm... not thatmuch less sex). Beats the way we do it now of 6 guys doing Carol and if she gets knocked up 5 guys got the ride for free. And splitting the costs among all six makes little sense either, compared to making the responsibility of pregnancy through child rearing a common good.

I'm already paying for your kids' school, much of their health care, food and other things and I don't think it would be wrong to throw in a few more bucks and some time to help cover the whole thing.

[Tumbulu]

13. I like your ideas

and agree that that is the way out of this. And I don't know why "it takes a village" got such bad press either. Newt, I guess.

[Nikia]

12. Right now a paternity test isn't usually required to be done

So I wouldn't think that a prenatal paternity test would be required to be done unless the woman wants one. I don't know if a potential father could demand one or not. This should not give a man any say in abortion though. Right now, the presumed father is not legally allowed to demand that a woman gets an abortion or not. Even if it could be 100% confirmed, I don't think that this would change that issue. One interesting thing is whether or not health insurance could be used to cover a man's baby. Right now it is usually not, but maybe it could be with a 100% confirmation.