Controversial question: How much say should a man have on abortion?

[liberalhistorian]

Okay, so to call this a "controversial" question is the understatement of the century. But I really am curious as to what the rest of you think about this.

I, personally, am pro-choice, although I draw the line at about four months if there are no medical reasons for it, and I strongly disagree with late-term abortions unless, again, there are medical reasons for it. Along with my belief that abortion should be available without pressure or harassment and with no questions asked for the first four months of a pregnancy, I also believe that it's primarily the woman's decision and no one else should have the right to make it for her or pressure her into a decision either way if it's something she doesn't want.

Most of you here know my own personal story, so I'm not going to rehash all of the gory details. Suffice it to say that I was engaged to a man I loved and who I thought loved me, I got pregnant, he suddenly decided that he "didn't want to deal with any of this" and that he "didn't need to deal with any of this because it really wasn't his problem." So, whose problem was it? Oh, yeah, mine, by biological default. See, I didn't want to deal with it, either. But I had to, whether I wanted to or not. So he threw me out of the house and I slept in my car that night, not wanting to go home and face my parents. I didn't want an abortion and I knew they'd pressure me to have one, which is exactly what they did when I did go home the next day. While I was very pro-choice, I also knew that I would never be able to have one myself and, for me, it was out of the question. I was still glad, however, that the choice was at least available to me.

So, I resisted my parents' pressure to have an abortion, although my mom came around and supported my decision and so did my stepdad once he saw how strongly I felt about it. And all the while, I was wondering where in the hell my ever-loving ex-fiance was in all this. When I first discovered I was pregnant, he told friends that, if my parents wanted me to have an abortion, they'd "have to come through me, first." He also said we'll "tell them together." Yeah, right, sure. He left all the dirty work to me and then had the nerve a year later to deny paternity and claim I'd been cheating on him, which was total bullshit and he knew it. He left everything to me without batting an eyelash. Of course, once paternity was proved, then he changed his tune a little, but the damage was done as far as I was concerned. So, when I hear about how men should have just as much say as women when it comes to abortion and that the husband/boyfriend should have as much say, you can imagine how I feel.

OTOH, I have to recognize that in this case I'm thinking with my emotions which isn't always the best way to go. Just as every situation involving an abortion decision is different, and the choice no matter what it is should be respected, so you cannot punish all men for the actions and/or inactions of others. To do so is as hypocritical as men blaming and punishing all women just because of what he'd suffered at the hands of a few women.

The problem, however, is how much say should the father have? What if he's abusive or controlling or what if he has no intention of helping the woman raise the child and being a father, he just doesn't want the abortion? And what if she's the one who wants the abortion because she doesn't want to raise a child, while HE'S the one who doesn't want the abortion and wants to raise the child? Or, what if she doesn't want an abortion and he's insisting on it? So, let's hear it. What do you thingk?

[NMDemDist2]

1. my hubby doesn't have an option on abortion because

"I'll never need one and I can't imagine being in the situation. No man should ever interfere with a woman and her doctor. If it was my child, I would have to defer to the woman's choice, since she would have to bear it, birth it and raise it, even if I helped"


he was a republican when we met 11 years ago, he's such a good Dem now :)

[liberalhistorian]

8. LOL!

Good for you! Maybe Carville will be able to do that for 'ol Mary one of these days.

[Baltimoreboy]

24. You left out pay for it

Something men have no choice in.

[Susang]

34. More money issues

You know what? Every single woman I know of, friend and acquaintance, who has had an abortion, has paid for it herself. Most of them had boyfriends or husbands.

When I worked as a clinic escort, many of the women had to scrounge to find the money, borrowing and begging from friends and family. It was rare to see a man paying, very rare.

[Baltimoreboy]

36. We travel in different circles

And the women who elected not to have abortions? Who paid for raising those children?

[Susang]

41. Probably

How many women have you escorted into a clinic? How many women have you talked to while they waited for their name to be called? How many women do you personally know who have actually had an abortion? If any, do you know the whole story?

You see, I do. I worked the front lines, probably before you were born, since I am assuming from your posts that you are very young. You need to gain a little more experience in my "circle" before you even attempt to lecture me about who is paying for the children raised by single women, as I know a lot of the single women who are doing the raising, most of it without the financial (or emotional) help of the bio-dad.

And really, what's behind the money obsession?

[Baltimoreboy]

48. Haven't been young in some time dearie

And the obsession is a good friend of mine is getting screwed over by someone he was dating and now has forced him to pay for a child he didn't want and she promised wouldn't ever arrive.

[Susang]

70. Well, you fooled me, "dearie"

Many people use terms like that to condescend to or belittle the person they are arguing with by being facetiously sweet. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, was it?

I don't care about your friend's getting "screwed over", as you so pun-fully put it. I'm sorry that he's about to be a father and he doesn't want to, but I'm sorry for his impending child. Though to be fair, it is your telling of your friend's story and the emphasis on the money your friend will be out that has affected me this way.

Perhaps your friend is really concerned about what kind of father he will be. Perhaps he is scared and worried about being able to live up the responsibility of being a father. We'll never know, all you cared to comment on was the financial burden and blaming the woman for his predicament.

Cheer up! At least your friend doesn't have to carry the fetus in his abdomen for approximately nine months. At least he doesn't have to endanger his health, worry about post-partum depression, concern himself about gestational diabetes, hypertension and dozens of other health problems that pregnant women face.

[Baltimoreboy]

Sorry, it was said with humor

I apologize if you took it any other way.

You were the one who guessed I was young. I was mocking my age.

Yes, my friend is out money. So is his other son who now has to drop private school because of someone else's decision.

My friend has already vowed to NEVER see said child. He wants nothing to do with it or the mother.

Impossible to cheer up. Oh, the woman doesn't have to carry the child nine months either. She could have a perfectly legal and safe procedure to end it.

She is making a life choice for herself, this child, my friend, his child and both their families.

[Susang]

90. I really hope your friend changes his mind on that front

Yes, the woman could have a surgical procedure to end the pregnancy. You weren't too keen on surgical procedures a little further down on the thread. I guess they're okay if they involve the woman's genitalia, but not okay when they involve the male's? :shrug:

They both made their choices. I really don't understand why you don't see that. I've been having sex for a long time now and I always knew the risks, even the risk of my changing my mind if the sperm invaded the ovum. You never know how you will react until it happens to you.

Men change their minds all the time about children after they're conceived as well. It is a common thing, I witnessed it all the time at the clinic I escorted patients at.

[Baltimoreboy]

96. If men change their minds, they still have no say

If a woman changes her mind, the man still has no say.

How eerily consistent.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for this woman. I personally hope raising a child on her own is everything she bargained for and more. And I know my friend, he's a teacher and already has a son. He wants no more children in his life and can't afford this new addition.

By the way, the male procedure you speak of is done to end not just this pregnancy but all pregnancies. The female procedure here is for one pregnancy only.

[Susang]

111. What a horribly vengeful thing to say

You would wish hardship on her innocent child just to spite her?

"How eerily consistant."











Whatever you do to others will be done again to you. Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.  Don't judge other people and  you will not be judged. And the forgiveness you give others will be given to you. 
 Mathew 7 

[Baltimoreboy]

113. Nope, the child is innocent

The mother is not. I wish hardship on her.

[Susang]

129. Listen to yourself

If you wish the mother of an infant harm, who do you think you are going to hurt? Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just trying to provoke?

Either way, I'm done with this. I have no wish to further discuss your or your friend's private life any further.





Whatever you do to others will be done again to you. Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.  Don't judge other people and  you will not be judged. And the forgiveness you give others will be given to you. 
 Mathew 7 

[noiretextatique]

277. just honest...punish the woman

stone her, shame her, etc. at least this one is more honest than most...and to hell with the kid too. poor innocent kid will suffer, but it's more important to punish the woman.
perfect synopsis of the pro-control position.

[Name removed]

286. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

288. all i know is noiretblu means "pissed off"

in colloquial french. i searched for asshole in the in an online english-french dictionary, but i couldn't find it. nice to see you posting, tansy. deplorable, some of the self-righteousness on this issue...but i suspect it has more to do with limited life experience than anything else. except possible that asshole thing :D

[kiahzero]

292. What's the matter, ran out of right-wing talking points?

Oh wait, there's always one more: ad hominem attacks. What a surprise!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

321. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baltimoreboy]

334. No punishment needed on either side

She is the one punishing my friend.

[merh]

135. Wrong - the reversal of a vasectomy is successful 90% or 98% of the

time. Men who have vasectomies can reverse them.

Anyway, you say your friend has one child and doesn't ever want another so the V is the way to go. He should have the procedure and get on with his life. The percentage of income a non-custodial parent has to pay for a child is nothing in comparison to the financial and emotional expense that the mother will be spending on the child, especially since "dad" wants nothing to do with it.

Males have reproductive rights, the right to take any and all precautions medically and scientifically available to them to not cause pregnancy. That is their right. Zip, snip or as you so crassly put it "money clip". Their choice.

[Baltimoreboy]

138. He didn't want another one with her

Who knows about the future.

And having a vascectomy and then reversing it is far more complicated than an abortion, which is what this thread is rapidly becoming.

[merh]

147. I think you are confused on that one! I do not believe reversing a

vasectomey is more complicated than an abortion. It may not be a procedure that is performed as frequently as an abortion, but it is not more complicated medically. The reason it is a less frequently performed procedure is because men are rarely responsible enough to have a vasectomey to protect their reproductive (or lack there of) rights.

[Baltimoreboy]

149. It is two procedures, getting the vascectomey and reversing it

[merh]

152. Yeah, and if you want to sew your wild oats and not get anyone pregnant

then you get the vasectomey. Then when you settle down and decide you want kids, you reverse the procedure. Big deal.

By the way, there are other means of birth control available to men. They just like to leave it up to the woman, make it her responsibility.

[Baltimoreboy]

205. Actually, the condom is sort of up to the man

And it was used in this case.

By the way, it's sow, not sew.

[merh]

221. The condom is not the only resource available

and thanks for correcting my spelling error. It was a late night and I was tired.

[Tansy_Gold]

142. Was your "friend" forced to have sex with this woman?

If not, then he took on the responsibility the instant he chose to insert his penis in her vagina.

If he didn't want to pay, he should not play.

End of discussion.



Contraception fails. Condoms break. Women lie.

A man who doesn't want to pay for a child should keep his penis where it belongs -- in his pants.


(edited because Tansy has been at the computer too long and can't see her own typos)

[Baltimoreboy]

150. So it's his fault she lied?

My how odd your logic is.

[Tansy_Gold]

160. No, it's his fault he had sex with her

Women have been lied to by men for centuries. If men are so dumb they think women won't lie, then they deserve whatever happens to them.

Look, this is all just a way for a guy to get out of paying for a kid he didn't want. Well, sorry, but that's the way the ball bounces these days. You father a kid, you support it.

We all know it didn't used to be that way. A girl got pregnant, it was her tough shit. She was on her own. She was ostracized, often kicked out of her family, the whole nine yards. She often ended up on the street -- or worse.

Meanwhile, the father just went on about his life as he chose, no worries, no monthly support checks.

I have a feeling that's the way your "friend" would like it to be again. The good ol' 4-F days: find 'em, feel 'em, fuck 'em, forget 'em.

You're just not happy at all, are you, poor BaltimoreBoy, that times have changed and now women have some weapons at their disposal.

Tough.

[kiahzero]

203. Wow

You father a kid, you support it.

What's different between that attitude, and the anti-abortion folks that insist that once a woman has conceived, she's obligated to give birth?

[Baltimoreboy]

206. He didn't father a kid

He got a woman pregnant who had vowed to get an abortion if that happened. There was plenty of time on her part to avoid giving birth.

[noiretextatique]

293. and he had the choice not the have sex

and of course plenty of time not to have sex.

[kiahzero]

296. So the right to choice ends after the sex?

Gee, that's funny... that's the bullshit argument that I've been fighting from the right.

[noiretextatique]

297. a man never has a "RIGHT" to control a woman's choices

but sure, he has the right not to have sex. it seems to me if more exercised that RIGHT, there would be fewer discussions on this topic.

[kiahzero]

300. Nice straw man

And again, with the right wing talking point. Did you sign up for the daily fax?

No one is saying that a man should have a right to control a woman's choices. Some of us are simply saying that if the right to choice should continue to apply after sex, it should continue to apply after sex to everyone.

What's amazing is how quickly some "pro-choice" people, like yourself, are willing to embrace the argument of people you've been fighting against, when it suits you.

[noiretextatique]

303. again...men's "rights" don't trump women's

so men can't make a "choice" about another person's body, even if it happens to be female. clue: there is nothing enlightened about thinking the sperm you put into another person's body still belongs to you...that's the epitome of misogynistic thinking, i.e. woman is simply a vessel for man's ejaculated bs. hint: that's a rw argument.
when men can get preganant...that's when they can make THIS choice.
as to whether or not a woman chooses to include a man in her decision...i think that depends. does a rapist have a "right" to decide what happens if the woman he raped gets pregnant? an abuser? a slippery slope, indeed.

[kiahzero]

306. Would you stop arguing a straw man?

Or are you incapable?

Let me make this absolutely clear: NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT MEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE WOMAN!

there is nothing enlightened about thinking the sperm you put into another person's body still belongs to you...that's the epitome of misogynistic thinking, i.e. woman is simply a vessel for man's ejaculated bs. hint: that's a rw argument.

Where did that come from? Did I say that? I don't think I said that.

Telling that you would end your post with another logical fallacy (slippery slope)... without resorting to your recycled right wing arguments, you don't have a case.

[Name removed]

309. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

314. I'm sorry, for expecting you to read the thread

My argument is simple: responsibility for pregnancy does not begin with the sex act - that's one of the axiomatic principles of a pro-choice argument.

Given that, it is logically impossible to believe that if a man does not want responsibility for a pregnancy, he should not have sex.

You, and others, seem to feel it's appropriate to say "Keep your zipper up" to men, while simultaneously attacking those who say "Keep your legs closed" to women. That's a contradictory viewpoint.

I think both positions ("keep your zipper up" and "keep your legs closed") are equally faulty, and I therefore attack them equally zealously.

[noiretextatique]

320. you are wrong about the pro-choice position

since contraception and education are also components of the reproductive rights position.
men have two choices they can make regarding creating the possibility of a pregnancy:
1) abstinence
2) contraception (condoms, vasectomy)
women have the same two choices.
if contraception fails, or isn't used and preganacy results, it's the women's choice as to what to do with that pregnancy.

as to abstinence, i advocate it for both men and women, but for different reasons. i don't pretend, like some, that the culture we live in doesn't play a role in attitudes about sex, and it's desirability to some. i think it could be accurately described as obsession in far too many.
i think those attitudes play a role in this debate.
sorry for the confusion...i rarely read entire threads, so i truly didn't know where you were coming from.

[kiahzero]

323. I agree with your options

I also agree that it's the woman's choice what to do with the pregnancy when contraception fails or isn't used. However, when the woman makes a choice that is contrary to her oral contract with the man (as in the example Baltimoreboy raised), she bears the obligation for that child.

My apologies for the confusion - I may have been too hostile with you, but when some of the first posts you see (not yours, someone else's) are as bigoted as some on this thread, I tend to get a little more aggressive.

[Yupster]

317. Is anyone saying a man should be able

to stop a woman from having an abortion?

If anyone has, I've sure missed it.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

384. It's easy to say for a woman to say she will get an abortion

when she isn't pregnant, but it's incredibly difficult for a woman to actually go through with having an abortion once she becomes pregnant. Most women think it over A LOT,and very often they can't bring themselves to actually go through with it.

[Tansy_Gold]

311. Because, as I have explained repeatedly and will try to

patiently explain again,

A woman has two opportunities for choice -- BEFORE sex and BEFORE giving birth. She also has two risks -- BECOMING PREGNANT and STAYING PREGNANT. They are two different situations, requiring two different responses.

If after becoming pregnant by a man who voluntarily had sex with her she chooses to abort, that is her choice. He can't abort himself for her. There's no retroactive contraceptive for him, no morning-after pill. he shot his wad and now it's out of his control.

And the fact that it's out of his control is driving him (and many men like him) nucking futs.

When a woman voluntarily engages in sex -- protected or not, since nothing's 100% effective -- she runs the risk of getting pregnant. That's the risk she takes.

But the SHARED risk entailed in the SHARED experience of sex is that if there is a child, BOTH PARENTS will take SOME responsibility.

Since the woman is the only one who can continue the pregnancy, she gets the right to choose whether or not to do so. The man, having no investment in the pregnancy itself, GETS NO CHOICE AT THAT POINT. He only has one risk, so he only has one choice, before having sex. He can't play Superman and turn time backwards and say, "No, no, I didn't want this to happen so I'm not going to let it happen." Sorry, Charlie, it already did.

Rights should be commensurate with risks. The woman risks much more -- the physical investment in the pregnancy, the long term risks of raising the child, etc., etc., etc. -- and so she should have more rights. Kinda like when you own more stock, you get more votes.

Our happy fucker, in this case, doesn't want ANY responsibility. NONE. He had his fun, and now he doesn't want to pay. And he wants to blame the person with whom he had a voluntary relationship.

The anti-choicers want to take that secondary avenue away from women, but the difference between saying "You father a child, you support it" and "You get pregnant, you bear it" is that men never have that second stage of risk and second point at which to make a decision. They only have one: to support any child that results from their having sex with the woman. Hence, "You father a child, you support it." you don't want to support it, don't get her pregnant. If that means not having penile-vaginal sex with her, oh well. That's how babies get made, so if you don't want to make one, don't put your dick in her pussy.

Women, on the other hand, have two points at which they MUST make a decision. The first is whether or not to have sex and risk getting pregnant. The second is AFTER they are pregnant and they have to decide whether or not to remain so. Once again, with patience, this is NOT a point that men have. Their only point of making a decision is before they have sex.

Furthermore, it is a point at which a woman MUST make a decision. She cannot opt out of the decision making process. If she takes no ACTION, she has by default decided to continue the pregnancy. There is no retroactive way to unpregnantize her. Abort, yes, but that requires action. Denial doesn't work.

The anti-choicers would strip women of the opportunity to make the choice at that second point of decision; the "you father it, you support it" only reiterates the point that men have ONE opportunity for irrevocable choice and it happens to be prior to having sex. The woman's one opportunity for irrevocable choice happens to come AFTER having sex -- she can still choose to have an abortion, or not.

The men who get so bent out of shape over this are, I think, angry that it cedes a portion of sexual power to women, and the men can't deal with this. They have been masters of their universe for so long that they can't even think in terms of women as fully human, fully sexual beings. Women are still only vessels for pleasure, not partners. The fact that women have turned the legal tables to the point that men are now being held responsible for their sexuality is anathema.

BaltimoreBoy's "friend" appears to be just another of these shallow creatures. He loathes the woman he took to bed, wishes nothing but ill upon her, disowns the child he created with her. Yet didn't he at one point know her well enough and find her desirable enough to have sex with her, be intimate with her, take the risk -- even if unspoken and reduced as far as possible -- to get a child upon her? He must have known and acknowledged that there was a risk, because they discussed the possibility of abortion, a possibility that could only have come into play if there was a risk, however slight, that she might become pregnant.

So why the sudden and devastating change of heart? Because he's no longer in control? Because he has had to cede power -- in this case, equated with money -- to a lowly, sinful, evil woman? A woman he no longer finds desirable? A woman who bested him?

That's what it really all boils down to, IMHFO. If it had been a business deal gone sour or if he'd lost a bundle in a Saturday poker game or a Superbowl pool, he wouldn't be crying foul. He'd pay up and go on with his life. But because it's a woman and because she took him in a uniquely female way, he's pissed beyond imagining.

Too bad.


Tansy Gold, thinking maybe there is a goddess after all :evilgrin:

[kiahzero]

319. That's bullshit

Either responsibility for the consequences of intercourse begin before that act of intercourse, or afterwards. It is logically inconsistent to argue that the responsibility starts sooner for one partner than the other - both had an equal stake in the act.

The anti-choicers want to take that secondary avenue away from women, but the difference between saying "You father a child, you support it" and "You get pregnant, you bear it" is that men never have that second stage of risk and second point at which to make a decision. They only have one: to support any child that results from their having sex with the woman. Hence, "You father a child, you support it." you don't want to support it, don't get her pregnant. If that means not having penile-vaginal sex with her, oh well. That's how babies get made, so if you don't want to make one, don't put your dick in her pussy.

This is a circular argument - you don't think men should have a choice, and so you assume that they don't have a choice. And again you return to the callous argument of anti-choicers: if you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. If that's a valid argument for men, it's a valid argument for women.

The men who get so bent out of shape over this are, I think, angry that it cedes a portion of sexual power to women, and the men can't deal with this. They have been masters of their universe for so long that they can't even think in terms of women as fully human, fully sexual beings. Women are still only vessels for pleasure, not partners. The fact that women have turned the legal tables to the point that men are now being held responsible for their sexuality is anathema.

Bullshit, and probably projection. You've displayed your bigotry towards men below, and now you claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be a bigot who wants to keep women down.

So why the sudden and devastating change of heart? Because he's no longer in control? Because he has had to cede power -- in this case, equated with money -- to a lowly, sinful, evil woman? A woman he no longer finds desirable? A woman who bested him?

That's what it really all boils down to, IMHFO. If it had been a business deal gone sour or if he'd lost a bundle in a Saturday poker game or a Superbowl pool, he wouldn't be crying foul. He'd pay up and go on with his life. But because it's a woman and because she took him in a uniquely female way, he's pissed beyond imagining.

Actually, it's because the woman broke an oral contract. They made an agreement, she backed out. It's really that simple.

[Tansy_Gold]

332. Your logic has more holes than my grandmother's lace curtains

According to your reasoning -- If there is no responsibility for child support before intercourse, men have no responsibility at all.

If the man only gets to make his choice to take responsibility AFTER the deed is done, how many do you think will take it? We have historical proof -- damn few.

No, the choice resides at the point BEFORE any damage is done. Since the male has no opportunity to retro the damage except prior to intercourse, that's the point of no return for him.

While you continue to decry my use of what you call rightwing talking points, your argument effectively puts all responsiiblity for contraception on women, all responsibility for choice on women, all financial burden on women, all emotional burden on women, all physical burden on women -- and not a speck on men.

That sounds one heck of a lot more rightwing than expecting everyone to take responsibility for their results of their voluntary actions at the point their actions have potential results.

[kiahzero]

335. Not at all

I am only arguing that a man has no responsibility for child support if he and the woman he is having intercourse with have a prior agreement that they will not have children. If that's what you mean by "making his choice before intercourse," then that's fine.

I don't think that all the responsibility and burden should be placed on women - I think that women should be expected to live up to their oral contracts, seeing as they are legally binding.

If the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term, after such an agreement is in place, how exactly is it the man's fault that he was lied to?

[DoktorGreg]

353. Your argument has bigger holes than my fishing net

While you continue to decry my use of what you call rightwing talking points, your argument effectively puts all responsiiblity for contraception on women, all responsibility for choice on women, all financial burden on women, all emotional burden on women, all physical burden on women -- and not a speck on men.

If a woman has sex without contraception, she is choosing to get pregnant. If she commits fraud, and doesnt tell the man she is trying to get pregnant, she assumes all the risk. Every last speck. Saddly, we are still 3-5 years away from the court case that undoes this injustice.

[DoktorGreg]

342. She has two more chances to back out after that even.

She can adopt, then she can simply abandon the child for dead, as is legal in some states.

I can give your argument some credit though, its a great reason for men to simply lie to women about their identity. Also, this attitide has done wonders for the sex industry.

I wonder, do you tell the men you date your opinion on this matter before you bed them down?

[Yupster]

155. What a weird double standard we live with

If a man has sex, he has made his decision to accept the risk of having a kid. Yeah - end of discussion.

If a woman has sex, she has made her decision to accept the risk of having a kid. That's disgusting. Where did you ever learn to hate women so much.

What a weird double standard.

Personally, I don't believe either a man or woman should be forced to take on the responsibilities of parenthood without their consent.

[Tansy_Gold]

168. it's just a variation on the double standard men used to impose

on women.

See, it used to be that if a woman got pregnant without a man to support her, she was bad, evil, sinful. She hid her shame, gave up her baby, or resorted to a dangerous and illegal abortion. Or she "forced" or "tricked" the guy into "making an honest woman of her." There was never any discussion of how many young women were "ruined" by the lying assholes who had their way with them, promised marriage, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

But times have changed. We've decided to make the double standard a little more fair. It's still the women who get pregnant, so we can't do anything about that, but we can even the responsibility a little.

We're going to give women SOME control over their lives and bodies. We're even going to give women -- who bear the burden of pregnancy and delivery and most of the burden of raising the child -- the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without the consent of the father.
True, the father has a small role to play in conception, but not enough to give him rights over the mother's body. So the mother has the SOLE right to determine whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.

We're also going to give women SOME recourse against the men who would otherwise take unfair advantage of them. We aren't going to force the father into marriage, just as we aren't going to force the woman to take a long vacation to visit a distant relative for seven or eight months and then return with "her poor dead cousin's" baby. We have managed to eliminate most of the stigma attached to a womam who chooses to have a baby without benefit of marriage, so that's some progress. But we've decided that SOME of the responsibility ought to fall on the father.

The father has a responsibility to any child that results from his sexual relationship with the mother. The father can't escape this "contract." He enters into it voluntarily as soon as he has sex with the mother. It doesn't matter if she lied to him about how fertile she was or wasn't, or what she would do if she got pregnant. His contract is with the potential child, and neither he nor the mother can abrogate that contract.

Can the mother walk away from it? Yes, if she chooses to have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. But that right of recision comes with the responsibility/risk that it is her body affected by the pregnancy. As long as it's only women who can get pregnant, it's only women who can decide to remain pregnant -- or not.

What pisses me off is the men -- and it's almost always men -- who want both the right to control when and if women have abortions (the "it's my baby too!" school) AND want the right to be able to walk away from child support if they change their minds.

Now that's a double standard!

[Yupster]

183. So this double standard

is some kind of weird punishment to malekind for how badly men have treated women for so many generations? In a few hundred years will we be even and then be able to get rid of the double standard?

[Tansy_Gold]

196. If, in a few hundred years,

women are on economic parity with men, maybe.

I said, there's no way around different standards -- women get pregnant and men don't.

The term "double standard" implies that the standards are unfair to one or the other party.

By imposing the responsibility of child support on men who father children on women over whom they have no other responsiblity, we've tried to make things a little more fair.

Clearly you'd just as soon prefer they stay as unfair -- tilted in total favor of men -- as possible.

Once again -- as soon as a man has sex with a woman, he enters into a contract to provide support for any child that results. It's a contract between him and the child, and since the child can't cancel the contract, the man can't either. The woman can't do it for either of them. The terms of that contract kick in only if and when the baby is born.

The woman -- who takes the sole risk of becoming pregnant -- enters into a similar contract, to raise and take care of the baby after it is born or to give it up for adoption after it is born. Prior to its birth, however, the contract is with herself, whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. Merely becoming pregnant entails risk, and that's what the woman takes on when she engages in sex: the risk of becoming pregnant.

Not necessarily the risk of having a child; she can avoid that by having an abortion. But her risk is of becoming pregnant and then having to make a choice: to carry the pregnancy to term or to terminate.

Because the woman is the only one who risks pregnancy, she gets a second level of choice: choice to have sex, choice to continue pregnancy. The man can't get pregnant, so his only choice is to have sex or not.

I'm sorry you think it's unfair that men don't get two choices in the matter. Unfortunately, since they don't face two risks, they don't get two choices.

THAT'S the true double standard.

What you'd prefer, I'm sure, is that men have two choices and no risks: choice to have sex and choice to not have any responsibility as a result of choice #1.

Some people seem to think that the choice to abort frees a woman of all responsibility, all risk, all complications, all cost, all trauma. What it really does is free MEN from all responsibility, all risk, all complications, all cost, all trauma.

If she chooses to abort, the father is completely off the hook. He is never forced to pay for the procedure, he doesn't have to take any time off work, he doesn't have to worry about finding a reliable, affordable, available abortion provider. He doesn't have to run the gantlet of abortion rights protesters at the clinic or, heaven forbid, some nutcase who decides to bomb the place. He doesn't have to endure any pain or any psychological trauma. But of course BEST OF ALL, he doesn't have to pay child support! Yippee! He's free of the slut and her dirty little brat forever!

Yes, there are fathers who might have wished she carried the pregnancy to term, but again, that's a right they wanted without any risks. Not fair.

Again, the man's risk is solely financial -- if there's a child born of the sex act, he may have to contribute to its support. The woman's risk is physical, emotional, psychological, and financial. But I guess you don't think that in exchange for taking all those risks she ought to have a little more choice in the matter.

[MrChupon]

339. What ridiculousness

You seem to have some real issues with men. Believe it or not, most of us don't think of women as sub-human. And even if we did, that is no basis for law.

What is wrong with:

1. Before the sex act the both man and woman can choose to back out.

-Easy.. I think we both agree here.

2. After the sex act:

-The Woman can choose to end her relationship with the pregnancy with an abortion (regardless of what the man thinks). No one wants to challenge this right.

-The Man can choose to sign papers to legally end his relationship with the pregancy (regardless of what the woman thinks). There can be a fee for signing the papers.


Seems very equitable to me. Law should be designed around equality, not to make up for past greivances.

[smirkymonkey]

241. Bravo!

I couldn't have said it any better!

[liberalhistorian]

262. Me, either!

Especially since I know first-hand what agony the abortion decision really is. Not for all women, I understand, but for me it was. I'm glad I ended up not having it, but I don't have the right to tell any other woman she shouldn't have an abortion just because I didn't. It's different for every woman and they need to be left alone to make their own decision, whatever it is, free from pressure and harassment and guilt.

[kiahzero]

261. Do you enjoy using the rhetoric of right-wingers?

It seems to be that it's all you are doing - taking right-wing bullshit arguments, and transposing the gender. For instance, in this post: "A woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should keep her legs closed. After all, contraception fails, condoms break, and men lie. She took on the responsibility the instant she chose to insert his penis into her vagina."

I think the argument's bullshit one way, but I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize that that means it's bullshit the other way, too.

[Cats Against Frist]

216. How very FUCKING NOBLE of your friend

You're hinting that it's the womans' fault -- that "she promised wouldn't come."

Both people are to blame for any mistakes. Unless she outright lied to him, saying either that she was infertile, or she was on the pill -- that's one thing. However, your friend ALWAYS had the option, as does everyone else, to use a condom, just in case, as backup.

The part that saddens me is that your friend is worried about his "other child's private school," while vowing not to see the other child. Trust me, I don't think that just because you spawned something means you have a right to either raise it or not to raise it, by law, but I would hope anyone, even someone who had an "accident" would at least have a little compassion for a child. The child is not the child's mother. The child didn't lie. The only thing the child has to live with is that his/her father didn't want him, because he/she cost too much money.

Nice.

[liberalhistorian]

260. Excuse me, but what a load of shit!

Who the hell forced him to have sex with her, anyway? Did she put a gun to his head and make him do it? Any time a man has sex, he has to be prepared for the possibility of something happening. They make the choice as well, the choice to keep it in their pants or not.

Women don't get pregnant on their own, pal, in case you missed high school biology, much as too many men wish they did. And whatever they're paying in child support is nowhere near what the child really costs. I get $255 a month in child support and that's nothing compared to what I really pay every month for my son. And what the hell kind of man refuses to see or be a part of the life of their own child? What a scumball!!!!

[kiahzero]

273. How is that any different than adoption?

Are biological parents who give their children up for adoption "scumballs?" If not, what is the difference between this case and adoption?

[Dorian Gray]

327. Adoption is different

because the biological are making a "sacrifice" of sorts to ensure that their children will have a better life. Or, at least that's what they hope. The selfishness of a parent who wants nothing to do with a child vs. the idealization of a better life for their children than what they could provide is a startling difference.

Sorry, I shouldn't have started reading this thread. It seems as though there are a lot of arguments that get to me. I was adopted. I don't consider my natural parents selfish. For whatever reason (read: my biological mother was 16 years old), my biological parents thought that I would have a better life with adoptive parents. And, even if that wasn't a concern, I'm sure that I did have a better life with my current parents. They were mature enough, loving enough, and financially secure enough to meet all my childhood NEEDS.

It doesn't sound like your friend is concerned about the needs of the child. He did take part in creating it. The mother may be a lying scumball, but to want nothing to do with the child, even making sure that it is living comfortably in a happy and/or healthy home is really not an argument that I believe will be successful in the debate about men's rights in abortion.

Sorry for sticking my 2 cents into this heated topic. I just couldn't resist with the adoption comment, as it is one that is close to my heart.

[kiahzero]

330. Understandable

I'm sure if the man in question were able to, he would happily put the child up for adoption, so that he/she would have the opportunity to live in a loving family like yours.

Adoption was mentioned simply to serve as a counterexample for the attack "How can he not want to be involved?" - an example of an instance where a parent can decide to remove him/herself from the life of their child without being a "scumball."

[NightTrain]

328. The difference is that when Lisa (liberalhistorian) became pregnant...

...the father of her child kicked her out of the house, which forced Lisa to move back in with her parents. The son of a bitch then denied paternity, claiming that Lisa had cheated on him and that some other guy had gotten her pregnant. It wasn't until the kid was two years old that the scumball finally acknowledged being his father. That's the difference between adoption and what Lisa's ex-fiancee did!

To quote Al Pacino in DOG DAY AFTERNOON: "Why don'cha talk about somethin' ya fuckin' know about?"

[kiahzero]

329. Her scumball ex-fiancee was not who we were discussing

We were discussing Baltimoreboy's friend.

[DoktorGreg]

389. How one sided of you...

Another way to look at this is...

Of course Lisa was totally honest to her ex, and told him before she had sex with him that she was determined to have his child. Of course when she told her fiance that she was pregnant, and he said he wasn't ready, this young pregnant woman acted and said very rational things (lol). Of course Lisa's mother was supportive and didn't say things like "I always knew that boy was a bum!" or "How could you, you little tramp". Cause we all know these childhood relationships always end in the best possible way.

Another factor in these types of relations, we all know the surprising level of fidelity that 18-19 year olds are capable of (lol). It is a testament to the strength of their relationship, that she felt she could get pregnant, right before that bastard arbitrarily kicked her out of the apartment. What a maroon, he had no reason to think, that in this day of DNA paternity tests, that the paternity would be his. What was he thinking???

[DoktorGreg]

387. Women don't get pregnant if they are using birth control

And if they are not using birth control and have sex, they are choosing to get pregnant. If they say, "Its ok baby, I'll take care of it", it is fraud, and they have denied the man Informed Consent.

As for your question, Its the kind of man, that chooses for whatever reason, just as a woman chooses to have her baby sucked out by vacuum and dumped into a sewer, that due to financial or social reasons, a child is not a possibility right now.

[Susang]

391. Don't know much about birth control, do you?

Obviously the "doktor" in your name does not refer to the kind that actually practices medicine.

For your information, women often become pregnant while using birth control. Many factors affect that process and can cause birth control to fail. No method of birth control is ever 100%. If you have sex, the possibility always exists that a fetus will be the result.

Please try to at least educate yourself a little before posting on this subject again. It will save us all a little time.

[DoktorGreg]

392. Actually thats not at all true

The pill is 100% effective in 99.98% of all women who use it properly. That one or two percent failure rate you see on the charts is women who use it improperly.

I realize it is not scientific and all, but I personally have never known a women to get pregnant who was using birth control. Every single case of unintended pregnancy with birth control, the woman was a liar, or a flake, or both.

"I'm kinda pregnant mom!"

Anyhow, if anything the amazing failure rate of mens birth control, (using nothing but condoms a man will get pregnant three times in his life) would tend to support the idea that men are forced into parenthood, and support the idea of post-natal mens choice rather than suggest that all men are bastards who want to abandon their children.

So basically you are arguing that women should have a right to childless sex, but men don't.

Finally, if you are going to attack me personally, try to be funny, the clicheish personal insults are soooo boring and repetitive.

[Susang]

399. Yes. Yes it is.

Case in point. I take thyroid medication. My thyroid medication makes my birth control less effective. Don't believe me? Look it up. Same thing happens to women with undiagnosed hyperthyroidism. Antiobiotic use also decreases the pill's effectiveness and can result in an "accident" There's plenty more where that came from. Unfortunately, doctors rarely bother to tell their patients of these drug interactions.

I know of many women who became pregnant while on the pill. That's the benefit of being a woman, first hand knowledge of these kinds of things. It happened to my best friend twice, and she took her pill accurately at the same time every day.

Having worked as a clinic escort, I know of many more cases of the failure of birth control both correctly and incorrectly used. So again, I'm going to urge you to please do some research about this subject, as I still have not seen any proof that you know anything about the science behind the pharmacology.

Even your rates on condoms are misleading, as number one, men cannot "get pregnant", and number two, that statistic would obviously have to be adjusted for lifespan, sexual frequency, etc., to mean anything. Also, since I never called anyone a bastard or accused all men of wanting to abandon their children, I'll have to assume that you must have an axe to grind here yourself. Perhaps you didn't bother to read my other posts on this thread where I mentioned that all adults (male and female) should be aware that having sex can ALWAYS result in the production of a fetus?

Since I have not argued anything close to what you have stated above, I'll just leave you to your anger. Your use of the words "liar and flake" in referring to women with unintended pregnancies was a dead giveaway and your previous post that mentioned women, vacuums and sewers all in the same sentence should have also clued me in to your feelings on the subject. Further discussion seems quite unnecessary.

[DoktorGreg]

401. OMG you proved my point for me!!! Thank you!

Here you are, you are gonna have sex with a guy even though you know your birth control doesnt work for you.

Your friend did it to some poor guy TWICE!!!

Additionally you have no concern at all for the male victim you are going to drag into your baby trap. All you think about is how you are gonna make a baby with some poor un-suspecting shmuck (and you are choosing to get pregnant cause you know the pill doesnt work for you), and you want to maintain your right to force him into being a parent.

Oh yah, and when you tell him you are on the pill, you are lying to him (or flaking out, you choose, ill be generous here)

Indeed, Further duscussion does seem quite unnecessary.

[Pithlet]

73. The child is entitled to his support

whether he wanted that child or not is irrelevant. It's not the kid's fault he doesn't want it, and it isn't the kid's problem that its mother may or may not have promised anything.

[Baltimoreboy]

75. It's the mother's fault

And it didn't have to be a child. SHE chose that to happen, not him. So why isn't it HER responsility?

[Pithlet]

79. Why is it the chid's responsibility

to pay for the choices her/his mother made? It is not the child's fault that it is born into the situation it is born into. Both parent have a responsibility to that child. That child deserves support from both of his/her parents just like any child.

[Baltimoreboy]

83. No, both parents do not have responsibility

He was more than willing to help her end this situation. She had always told him that was the plan if needed. Then she changed her mind. That CHOICE makes her a mother. It shouldn't also be his CHOICE.

[Pithlet]

89. Yes, they do

The child did not ask to be born into that situation. That child does not exist less because on parent doesn't want him/her. That child has the same needs that any child has. Both parents contributed to his creation. Both parents are responsible to him. That child is entitled to it.

[Baltimoreboy]

98. Both parents did not make the decision

One wants him, the other does not. So the mother is forcing this situation and mandating that a child will be born into a one-parent home with a father who will never be there -- ever.

[Pithlet]

115. No

Unless she knocked him over the head and stole his sperm in his sleep, he was part of creating that child. She could have chosen to end the pregnancy, but chose not to, for whatever reason. A child ensues. A child that has nothing to do with how it came to be.

If we start letting men off easy with the "she could have had an abortion" excuse, then what we end up having is a bunch of men (not all men, but there will be some) having sex indiscriminately because they know they won't be forced to deal with the consequences. We'll end up with women who will be pressured to have an abortion or give it up for adoption after 9 months of pregnancy because they can't afford to do it on their own. We'll end up with more children living in poverty. And a bunch of men free of all of that responsibility, even though they contributed to the pregnancy.

The end result would be children being denied support they'd otherwise have, due to consequences and decisions totally out of their control.

The adults made their decisions, and the adults (both of them) should live with the consequences, because they now have a child to care for.

[Baltimoreboy]

119. In that case, he should be able to sue her for misrepresenation

And be able to deny her support. It's not like she hid her plan. She told friends she wouldn't have a kid. She even told her parents.

[Pithlet]

125. NO!

That's punishing the child, who has no fault in this. No fault. The embryo didn't send little messages in the womb to her to lie and deceive the father.

If he's able to deny her support, he hurts that child. A child he had a part in creating. I don't understand how you could accuse me of having no empathy in another post, and yet seem so blaze about taking support away from a child because of decisions the parents made.

[Baltimoreboy]

128. Then place the child up for adoption

She knew what her financial situation was before she made this choice. And her choice is hurting another existing child.

[Pithlet]

141. Ridiculous

So, women should be pressured into putting children up for adoption that she might otherwise want, because the father wants to abdicate his responsibility in the matter (because he already has a child by someone else, and knows this). That is fair?

Her choice was about her body and carrying a pregnancy to term. That other child is the concern of the father, not hers. If he's going around getting multiple women pregnant, then he has to have responsibility for all of them. That other child is none of her concern. Didn't he know he already had another child when he risked a pregnancy by having sex with her?

HE has sex with her and she gets pregnant, but because he already has a child, SHE shouldn't be so selfish and should just give it up or have an abortion already? And if she doesn't do it, SHE's the evil one? This kind of rationalization is insane! It's ludicrous!

It seems to me, that if your friend already had a child, and having another one would place a burden on him and his family, he might want to have been a bit more careful about getting someone else pregnant. You seem to think he owns none of this mess himself.

[Baltimoreboy]

207. I love this

So the woman bears no responsibility, only the man. But somehow she gets to make the entire decision and he can't opt out in any way.

[Pithlet]

232. How is it that the woman bears no responsibility?

She's the one with the baby. She is the one that went through the pregnancy and all the costs both physical and monetary that go with it. If she chooses abortion or adoption she has the emotional consequences there, too. The only reason she gets to make the decision is because it is her body. I'm sorry that nature designed things that way. But it isn't all fun and games for the mother, too. There isn't this huge conspiracy of women to get themselves pregnant to piss off and empty the wallets of men.

And, you seem to be deliberately forgetting the most important point of all; the child involved in all this. You'd rather smear pregnant woman while asserting the rights of men to abandon at will, forgetting that there is a child in the middle of all this, if the woman carries her pregnancy to term.

[noiretextatique]

278. not to mention that the reality of "child support"

is that the custodial parent generally ends up bearing the brunt of the financial responsiblities of rearing the child. some men don't seem to grasp that....but i can refer them to a few of my single mom relatives and friends who can tell them all about that reality.
my sister, for example, never received a dime for her deadbeat husband to support their three children....not in 18 years. that is the reality for far too many women i know. child support is little more than dream for far too many single parents.

[Baltimoreboy]

338. She is the one with all the choices

She could have chosen to be free of these obligations. He could not.

If she doesn't want the child, there are many who do.

[Pithlet]

347. The child has no choices

What about the child? That is what it comes down to. I don't care what choices the woman has or had or will ever have. What about the child? Can you at least acknowledge that the child is innocent in all this, and doesn't deserve to be cast aside and unacknolwedged?

[Baltimoreboy]

352. The child doesn't have to be cast away

There are families out there going all the way to China just to adopt. She knowingly had a child that she couldn't afford. Why should he pay for her whim?

[Pithlet]

363. That is what your friend is doing

You act as if deciding to give up a child is just a matter of making a decision. As if it were as easy as deciding on a hair cut, or what breed of puppy you want.

He is not paying for a whim. He is paying for HIS CHILD. It is his child, whether he acknowledges it or not. It is his child whether he takes responsibility or not. Whether he likes it or not, that child exists. If he decides he doesn't want to acknowledge, it, then he is casting that child aside. It's tough that he never wanted this. But, it's too late.

These aren't pets we're talking about.

[Baltimoreboy]

403. No, being "his" implies more than involuntary biological event

He would have to be involved in the life of the child. He isn't.

And it's only too late because she forced him into this situation.

[shimmergal]

154. Well, HE does have some other options, too.

He can look for a better paying job. Or take a second job. Or even try to fix her up with a buddy who might have a better attitude toward helping raise a child, even one who's not "his own."

That's one of the ways single mothers sort out the good guys from the losers, you know. The baby's lucky it has at least one parent who'll care deeply about him or her.

As for the biological father, in the long run he'll be the one who suffers, if he sticks to "wanting nothing to do with the baby." Even his existing child may think that proves he can't be trusted. He may die a lonely old man whom nobody really cares about.

[Baltimoreboy]

208. So you consider him a loser because he doesn't want

to be forced into fatherhood?

Again, that was never part of the bargain in their relationship. And, because the woman demands it, why should he work two jobs? Why should he be responsible for her choice?

Truly try to imagine a man making the same kind of decision for the woman and you will see the point.

[Tansy_Gold]

231. No one is "forcing" this creep into "fatherhood"

No one is saying he has to be a daddy to the fruit of his loins -- we're just saying he fathered the child, now he has to help pay the costs of raising it.

It's clear you don't get it. It's clear you just think a guy should be able to wash his hands of anything that might cost him dough. You think the mother "lied" about not wanting to have a child, but did it ever occur to you (what a rhetorical question! of course it didn't!) that maybe she, heaven forbid CHANGED HER MIND AFTER SHE GOT PREGNANT.

Look, a woman doesn't discover she's pregnant fifteen minutes after intercourse. It usually takes, oh, about a week, two weeks, maybe a month before she even suspects anything. So another question ought to be: Did he see her at all after they had sex? Was this an on-going relationship of any kind after he did the dirty deed? You've already said in one post that he "knew her well enough to have sex with her," so I'm assuming it wasn't a casual blind-date and one-night-stand.

If he had sex with her and then dumped her, I have even less respect for him than I did before, which wasn't a whole helluva lot. But if he continued the relationship, who's to say he didn't give her the impression that he wasn't totally averse to having a child? Oh, I'm sure YOU will tell us he did nothing of the kind, but you're only a secondhand witness.

Women do change their minds. Maybe upon finding out that she was pregnant, she ran to her friends and family in horror, but they convinced her that becoming a mother might be a good thing -- and I don't just mean as a way to get cash from the "involuntary sperm donor." ("Involuntary"? Did you mean to imply that she stole it from him without his permission? Never mind. That picture is too gross for me before my iced cappuchino.)

There's been a recent case, I think in PA but I'm not sure, in which a woman who became pregnant as a result of a non-marital relationship has been granted child support even though the father claimed he was only a "sperm donor" and didn't want to be obligated, and that the woman had promised she wouldn't ask for support. What the court essentially said was: THE FATHER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO THE CHILD REGARDLESS WHETHER HE WANTS TO BE OBLIGATED OR NOT. the only way the mother can free him of that obligation is by not post-partum asking for the dough. IF SHE ASKS, AT ANY POINT, his obligation kicks in.

In many states, if she goes on welfare, the state can go after him for repayment. It's kind of like that business of having a child-support tax, only the only ones who get tapped are the dead beat dads.

Once again, though I am pretty sure it won't sink into certain heads on this board -- when a woman has sex, she takes two risks: one of getting pregnant and having to make another set of decisions, and one of bearing and raising a child. Therefore she gets two points at which to make a decision. The first point is before sex, the second point is after conception.

WHEN A MAN HAS SEX, HE ONLY TAKES ONE RISK: that he might have to shell out child support if there's a baby born subsequent to his fun. Therefore he only gets one decision-making point: before sex.

IF HE DECIDES TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE RISK, he has to live with the consequences.

Now, to my way of thinking, that's a simple and fair and EQUAL standard, based on the risks. Two risks=two decisions; one risk = one decision.

Again, no one forced your friend to have sex with this woman. No one's forcing him to be a "father." The courts, the system, and most of the people on this absurd thread are just saying that he has an obligation to the child he created, whether he intended to or not. He had sex with her of his own free will and it's just too fucking bad she got pregnant by the smarmy asshole. it's too bad there's a child about to be born who has a scumbag (literally: "scumbag" originally was used to refer to a used condom) for a father.

Many years ago, my cousin and a bunch of his buddies went out drinking. They all promised not to get drunk, because it was in the winter and it was icy up around Chicago. My cousin was the youngest of the bunch and the only one not of legal drinking age, so when they left the bar, one of his friends who was older agreed to drive my cousin's car, just in case they got stopped. Well, they got stopped all right. By a truck. Four people were killed, including my cousin's best friends in the front seat of his car. He and his other friend in the back seat were seriously injured. Forty years later, he still isn't over it, he's still in therapy (physical and mental) and he still says, "I didn't mean for it to happen that way."

Your "friend" may not have intended to get this woman pregnant, but he did, and he's obligated to take care of the child that resulted. I have no sympathy for him at all, and very little for you for choosing such a schmuck (from the Yiddish for "penis") for a friend. You said he's a teacher -- if I ever found out what school he taught at, I'd be sure to let them know what I think of him.

[Baltimoreboy]

337. Of course she is forcing him

She agreed that if she got pregnant that she would have an abortion. They both took all the necessary precautions before hand and then she cahnged her mine.

He is given no choice from then on.

She is entitled to change her mind, but she should not be entitled to force him to do so.

This was an ongoing relationship. The moment she decided to hold him hostage, he cut her off. Up till then, he was there for her and had planned to both take her to the doctor and pay her medical expenses. Now he views her as an adversary.

Actually, I am more than a second-hand witness. I know people on both sides -- her friends and his.

All I can say is that if this happened to me, I would do every legal thing I could do to ruin her as she was trying to ruin me.

[DoktorGreg]

355. How about the poor married schmuck who's wife cuckolds him?

Who is responsible for child support even when the child isn't biologically his?

That is a (20% of married women get pregnant by people not their husband) very common case of forced fatherhood.

[Baltimoreboy]

404. Exactly, that should be grounds for divorce without any money

Let the woman sue her lover for support.

[MrChupon]

343. but

If we start letting men off easy with the "she could have had an abortion" excuse, then what we end up having is a bunch of men (not all men, but there will be some) having sex indiscriminately because they know they won't be forced to deal with the consequences. We'll end up with women who will be pressured to have an abortion or give it up for adoption after 9 months of pregnancy because they can't afford to do it on their own. We'll end up with more children living in poverty. And a bunch of men free of all of that responsibility, even though they contributed to the pregnancy.

Wait, what about the womens responsibility? These men just can't go on having sex "indiscriminately" without a woman to compliment them.

[Pithlet]

348. What about the child?

Why should they be cast aside? Why should the man be able to just wash his hands of the whole affair?

[MrChupon]

364. The woman has an equal chance to wash her hands

of the whole affair.

[Pithlet]

365. Doesn't anser my question

What about the child?

[Yupster]

156. I don't think it's right to

make someone take responsibility for a decision that someone else made.

There is a responsibility to the child though.

However, in my opinion, it should not be the man's responsibility. It should be the responsibility of all of us, as a society, as a government to feed, clothe and house the poor, sick, old and young.

[Pithlet]

161. But they DO have some responsibility

We're not talking about forcing someone to abide by a contract that another person made. We're talking about a mother and a father and a child. However that dynamic came to be, both still have a responsibility to that child. They both did make a decision that ultimately ended with a child being born. He is the child's father. How is it that he shouldn't have some responsibility? I don't see how a man doesn't have some responsibility towards his child, even if he didn't make the decision that the child be born. It doesn't make it any less his child. He is abdicating a responsibility, plain and simple.

How is it fair to make a child suffer from decisions that others made? The child is the most innocent one of all of them, and people here seem to think that it is quite okay that it gets the worst scenario in all of this. That's okay for one parent to walk away and never have anything to do with them, with money or affection. You can't force the affection issue, but you can force the money; money the child is entitled to.

[Yupster]

170. You can't be held responsible for a decision

that you did not make. It's the woman's right to choose. With the right to choose must come the responsibility of the decision she makes. The decision is hers alone. He has no say.

I do not believe a child should be left without means though. I believe the state should provide child support. I'm perfectly willing to pay my taxes for that purpose.

[Pithlet]

233. Why the state, and not the father?

The state, i.e. us, made no decisions either. Of course, we should always provide for children and families; I believe that it is our duty as a society to do so. But, why does the father get off scott free, while the rest of us pays the tab?

You make it sound as if all of a sudden, out of the blue, a man is presented with a pregnant woman through no doing of his own. That he did NOTHING to precipitate the situation. You do understand how pregnancy occurs, I presume?

[Yupster]

266. First off

No, I have no idea how pregnancy occurs. I keep looking at my kid and asking him "where'd you come from all the sudden."

The pregnancy came about in part because of the man. You don't become a parent when there is a pregnancy confirmed though.

You become a parent when the child is born, and that happens because the mother makes a decision to carry the child.

The father had no say on whether that child is born or not. That is entirely the mother's decision and therefore her responsibility.

I believe I speak for most of us in saying that we want there to be a step between conception and childbirth where the woman should still have a right to make a decision about whether there will be a baby born. Few of us would want the pregnancy and childbirth to be one decision. That's the pro-life position. The overwhelming majority of us I believe pregnancy should not be the end of the choices for a woman.

However, that choice of whether a baby is born or not is indeed a woman's. The choice and responsibility must go hand in hand.

[Pithlet]

354. The child has no choice in this.

Does the child make a choice to be born? No. Therefore, why is it okay for the father to abandon and just walk away?

Choice and responsibility go hand in hand. Why is that not the case with the man? And again, why can't you, or anyone, explain to me that the child is not innocent in this, and therefore deserves nothing from the man, because THEY should suffer from what their mother chose. You, nor anyone else here, will even touch that. That point just gets circumvented over and over, and diverted back to "The woman made a choice! The woman made a choice!" Shrill, and misses the whole point.

[Yupster]

267. Why the state?

Because I want to live in a society where we don't let babies starve or freeze. I have no problem with my taxes going to pay for children who need means.

No the father does not get off scott free. His tax dollars will be used just like everyone else's. He will help pay for millions of kids who need help just like everyone else.

[smirkymonkey]

245. He made the decision to have unprotected sex.

The woman did not make THAT decision for him. Sex has consequences. Women have borne the brunt of it's consequences for centuries. It's about time men own up to THEIR PART in creating a child.

[Yupster]

268. You have no idea whether a person

had unprotected sex or not. Birth control fails constantly.

My own wife and I decided we would discuss whether to have a kid on after our second abnniversary. Our kid was born right before our second anniversary sidestepping that whole discussion thing.

How can you be so quick to judge?

[DoktorGreg]

345. If a woman has unprotected sex she is choosing to get pregnant

If she lied to the man and said she was using birth control, it is fraud, even if it isn't legally defined that way. In that case the woman is subverting the mans choice, because she lied to him. Had she been honest, by saying "If i get pregnant, I am keeping the child", then the man has a choice. Failing that, the man had no choice.

Very shortly, in the next 3-5 year we will see the first successful case of a man getting a judgment against a women for this fraud. The terms will look something like, the man pays child support until the child is 18, at which time the woman begins to make restitution payments to the man.

Deal with it, it is coming.

[Pithlet]

351. If it is indeed proven

that the woman has commited fraud, then after the child turns 18, I have no problem with recourse.

[Djinn]

388. likewise

"If a woman has unprotected sex she is choosing to get pregnant"

and if the bloke doesn't wear a condom he's choosing the same thing and should STFU.

I'll be looking forward to the court case that ensures that all the woman waiting for their ex to pay anything at all can actually feed their kids. Or the one that makes a bloke pay child care going back 20 years because after two decades he's decided he DOES want to be part of the kids life after all.

While I can see the problems created by the fact that a woman CAN "force" a bloke to have a kid and yet can not be forced to go full term when she wants an abortion - blokes MAY just have to deal with that - it's biology that says we get preggers and decency that says you can not force someone to abort and that two people make a kid and the child shouldn't suffer for the mistakes (or oversights) of its parents. We didn't make those rules - and I can name MANY woman that wish it were the other way around.

[DoktorGreg]

390. Condoms are not good enough, they only prevent STD's

They are ineffective as Contraception. In fact, withdrawl has a better success rate than condoms alone. So there you go, ineffective as defined by, worse than nothing at all.

So all the Man haters who just spout "slap a condom on there" should stfu.

Come up with birth control that works for men, and you have a point. Until then, when a woman chooses to keep a child, and involves the man against his will, he is a forced parent. Under the penalty jail time, at the point of a gun. So dont invoke decency, cause there aint nothing decent about that at all.

[Djinn]

397. really

they are an effective barrier against virus' but not sperm? That's hilarious!! I'd LOVE to know where you heard that wee gem

Failure rates (actual use as opposed to perfect use) are minimal when compared with the Diaphragm, spermicides, female condom AND withdrawl and "doing nothing" (in 100 women using the methods for a year 19 preganancies will occur for those using withdrawl, 85 for those using nothing and 12 for those using condoms) and if people were taught correct use a little more that figure would be even better.

I assume the "doktor" in your name is in no way connected with medicine!

As for "man hater" well now I'm getting slammed from both ends - I'm a traitor for suggesting that it is somewhat unfair that a man can not want a child but is "forced" to have one and I'm also a man hater for suggesting that BOTH sexes can (in the main) prevent pregnancy.

Fact is woman give birth, so unless you approve of forced abortion or neglect of a child men are going to HAVE to deal with that fact.

And anyway - any reason if you're that adamant about NOT wanting a sprog and you'er sleeping with women you don't know well enough or trust well enough to beleive her when she says she's on the pill, that you can't get a vasectomy??

[Tansy_Gold]

270. It IS her responsibility.

She's taking HER part of it.

Once again -- HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CHILD THAT RESULTS FROM HIS VOLUNTARY ACTION.

What you want is for her to take ALL THE FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER ACTIONS AND HIS.

You want him to get off with nothing.

It's fine as long as she doesn't get pregnant, then they're both in the clear. But if he gets her pregnant, he wants nothing. He wants her to take action -- releasing him from liability, having an abortion, commiting suicide, whatever it takes -- so he doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions. He wants her to take responsibility for him, too.

HE HAD SEX WITH HER OF HIS OWN FREE WILL -- he should pay.


I have no sympathy or respect for this irresponsible sack of shit. I'm not evil enough to wish harm upon him, but I wouldn't be heartbroken either if karma caught up with him.

By the way, I've been wondering. Where did his beloved first son come from? Is this guy married, and the mom-to-be is a sidelight? Or is he divorced, and couldn't hold his marriage together? Or did he never marry the mother of his first child either? Just sends enough support money to keep the kid in private school? Or maybe he's a widower, lost his wife in some tragedy and now has it in for every other woman?

I'm sorry, but whatever his previous marital status, this guy comes across as a real total loser. He's probably a repuke, too.

Tansy Gold, who trusts she can accuse those who are only "friends" of DUers of being repukes when she would not ever think of doing the same to a real DUer because she would be banned

[kiahzero]

284. Still reciting right-wing talking points?

HE HAD SEX WITH HER OF HIS OWN FREE WILL -- he should pay.

If that's the case, then what's wrong with the corollary: "SHE HAD SEX WITH HIM OF HER OWN FREE WILL -- she should pay?" Because that's the pro-life position, and you seem to hold the same exact ideas, just with opposite gender roles.

I have a question: What do you think of parents who put their children up for adoption? You seem to think that any parent who doesn't take an active role in the upbringing of their offspring is a horrible person - does that mean that every parent who every put their child up for adoption is a "total loser, and probably a repuke?"

[Tansy_Gold]

325. Sorry, Kiahzero, but they are NOT rightwing talking points

You just wish they were, because then they're easy to dispose of.

They are actually radical feminist talking points.

[kiahzero]

326. What's not a right wing talking point?

That responsibility for pregnancy begins when the zippers are lowered and the legs are opened? It certainly is - this is the argument that anti-choicers will often make to support their bullshit position, that the choice "has already been made."

Just because you swapped the gender in question doesn't mean that it's not the same argument. You're just applying it different. A bigot is a bigot, and a right-wing talking point is a right-wing talking point.

[DoktorGreg]

372. Wow, thanks for pointing that out...

And to show just "how far gone" the radical feminists are nowdays just take a gander at NOW's website, where they are waging a campaign to take away ALL fathers rights. NOW, not only wants men to pay for their babies, they don't even want them involved in the parenting.

http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html

Men, beware of radical feminist women, they not only want your sperm, and money, they want to deny you visiting rights to your children.

[freetobegay]

410. Then he needs to learn how to keep it in his pants

Or learn how to use a condom! Common sense goes along way!

[Cheswick2.0]

42. The women paid for those children with a tiny bit of help

from the men.

You can't possibly think child support is more than a small token.

[drthais]

55. this is NOT a money issue!

how dare you!

[Baltimoreboy]

57. Wanna bet?

Tell that to my friend. Or perhaps his other son who now has to do without a lot of things because his father has to pay hundreds of dollars every month.

[Bat Boy]

78. You site one example. Your friend.

Got any more? 'Cause I've got a ton of stories from women who went through hell.

If we go by preponderance of evidence, you should be quiet now.

[Baltimoreboy]

80. Once is enough

Men have no rights in this situation. I refuse to go to some nutty men's rights site to dredge up more but you know I could. This is just the dirty underbelly of the Choice movement. No one her wants to really admit they aren't pro-Choice. They are only pro-Choice for women.

[Pithlet]

88. The reason we're only pro-choice for women

is it is women who get pregnant. It is their bodies that are directly affected.

It sucks that it initially seems to throw the balance of power to the woman. But, let's say that we try to rectify that by allowing men to opt out of supporting children they didn't want. The largest group affected by poverty already is children. Do we want to add to that the children of the fathers who refused to support and were legally allowed to do so?

Regardless of how a child came to be; whatever decisions were made or not made, once that child exists, it is entitled to support from both parents. If one is non-custodial, it still deserves the support from that parent.

[Baltimoreboy]

91. His body and his son's body are pretty affected

By this sudden arrival. Loss of serious money. Sudden family and legal complications.

It doesn't just seem that it initially throws the balance of power to the woman, it does.

I honestly believe that this woman would not have the child if he was not financially supporting it. No support, no child. Of course that wouldn't work in all cases, but it sure would in some.

[Pithlet]

97. Their bodies were not directly affected.

That doesn't mean they aren't affected. But, they did not carry that pregnancy in their bodies.

Your third sentence is completely irrelevant in terms of the child. It is not the child's fault. THe child had NOTHING TO DO with his/her mother's decisions. I don't care how conniving and calculating the mother is, it is not the fault of the child. We should not deny him the support from his father. Punishing the mother for making the wrong decision punishes the child. How fair is it to do that?

[Baltimoreboy]

99. You don't consider psychological damage to hurt?

How sympathetic of you.

The mother made the decision. If she is unable to care for the child then she shouldn't have it.

[Pithlet]

105. Where did I say that things like that don't hurt

The mother was not the only factor here in this child coming into being. Your friend got her pregnant. If a man has sex with a woman, and somehow his sperm end up inside and fertilizes an egg, then if that egg makes it to maturity and becomes a child, he has responsibility there.

I'm certainly sympathetic, but I'm also sympathetic to the child that you somehow want the man to be able to just shove away and never bother with, monetarily or otherwise. Where is the sympathy in that? It isn't the poor kid's fault.

[Yupster]

159. The best cases are the ones where

a wife has an affair and two kids result. The wife then divorces hubby, runs off to live with her boyfriend, and the court orders the ex-husband to pay child support for the two kids who are not his. So he has to send a check to his cheating ex and her lover boyfriend each month.

This was a celebrated case locally where a man went to jail rather than send a check each month to his ex-wife and her boyfriend for child support for the boyfriend's two kids.

Now that's nuts.

[Yupster]

158. I say the child deserves support from society

If the guy had no say in the decision on whether the kid was born, he should not be held responsible for someone else's decision. How can you be held responsible for someone else's decisons?

[Pithlet]

164. Support from society

means welfare and charity programs, programs that are already stretched enough without adding all of the children from fathers who choose to abdicate their responsibility. You really think it is fair to give a child over to charity, where we all pay (and we certainly had no say in the matter, either), rather than the man who fathered him in the first place? Do you really think that men who have sex with women shouldn't have some responsibility?

Society at large had no say in the decision. Man who had sex *snort* had no say in the decision. Which is more fair to put the burden on?

When my husband and I were dating, if I'd gotten pregnant, my boyfriend would have been able to wash his hands of it and say not my problem, and continue to live richly on his own on a six figure salary while I struggle as a single parent, and rely on government and charity? Because it was my decision? Scenarios like that make sense to you? You think my boyfriend should have NO responsibility there?

[Yupster]

172. I would not give a child over to charity

I would support it through the state. Yes, welfare payments. Has that now become a bad word? It's not to me. I have no problem with sending a check to a child who has no means. I couldn't think of a better use for my tax dollars.

As far as the father running from his responsibility, you can only take responsibilty for choices you make. When it becomes a woman's and a man's right to choose, then they will have equal responsibilities. As long as it's a woman's right to choose, then it must be the woman's responsibility too. With choice comes responsibility for those choices.

[Pithlet]

243. Nope

It is not fair for society to take up the slack over the father, who DID make a choice. He had sex too, not just the woman.

I see what your angle is. As long as women have the right to an abortion, then they and they alone can only ever shoulder the burden of an unwanted pregnancy. Until men can have some control over women's bodies, it's their own damn fault if they get pregnant. What a round-a-bout way of punishing women for having the right to control their own bodies.

It's a bunch of bullshit is what it is. Children that result from some unwanted pregnancies are no less their offspring than children in a solid marriage. They are no less deserving of support from both parents. And every single woman everywhere, regardless of her position on abortion, shouldn't be punished with shouldering the ENTIRE responsibility because enough people fought for and won the right for a woman to choose.

[Yupster]

269. You miss my point entirely

I believe it should be the woman's decision, and only hers that a baby should be born or not.

However, just like a woman should not be forced to be a mother without her agreement, I believe the same should be afforded to a man. No man should be forced to be a father without his agreement.

The man should have no controll or say at all over the woman's body. That's my view.

Also, it is not just a woman's fault (I'd prefer the word decision) that she got pregnant, but it is just the woman's decision that she decided to have the baby birthed. That's the distinction.

[Pithlet]

356. I've asked this a million times

What about the child? What choice did the child make in all this? And the man did make a choice. It's not as if pregnancy happens spontaneously, and the finger of God comes down and says "You're the father! It's been randomly decided! Too bad for you!"

It takes two to make a child, and the child is innocent in all this. The child asked for none of this drama. You still won't address that.

[Yupster]

366. I've answered this quite a few times already, but

the child should not suffer.

The state (federal government) should send a check for the child's care instead of the sperm donor.

I call for radically increased benefits for children in need.

I propose paying for the increased benefits by decommissioning one carrier battlegroup.

There is no need for the child to go without.

[Pithlet]

367. The states are already hard pressed as it is

programs are being cut, and states are bleeding. Do you really think that getting rid of child support, therefore raising the number of children in poverty means that no child suffers?

[Yupster]

369. Well isn't that what unites us on this board?

Let's fight for more help for children from the government.

I'm not proposing getting rid of child support. I'm proposing changing who pays it.

I want to increase child support.

What was it that RFK said -- (paraphrase alert) "Some see the world as it is and say why... Others see the world as it should be and say why not."

I don't get people who say sure it's unfair. Deal with it.

Is that an acceptable position on DU?

[Pithlet]

371. We aren't saying deal with it.

What is the sense in fighting for more help from the government, and at the same time creating an even bigger problem and adding more poverty to the mix?

You are indeed advocating getting rid of child support. Do you really think a system that is overburdened as it is can make the distinction between "bastard" children and children born in wedlock, so they can determine who is more deserving? Child support will crumble if men are allowed to walk away and not pay a dime without repercussions.

What is the difference between a child born into a union, and then the parents later split up, and a child who was born from two parents who split up after they were conceived, but before they were born, or who's parents were never together to begin with?

I'll answer that last question for you. There is no difference. And THAT is what unites most of us on this board.

And aren't you essentially saying deal with it? Women have been allowed to exercise their choice, so they should deal with it if the man that helped create the situation says "fuck it, I'm out of here?" That's an awful big "deal with it" if you ask me. And one that affects the child far more than the "deal with it" that makes them pay for a child that is half theirs.

edited for clarity

[Yupster]

376. Okay, I'll agree to

make the changeover gradually so no child gets hurt in the interim.

The part about the families breaking up I don't get because my proposal calls for the man to have to declare in writing within a week or so of being informed his mate is pregnant whether he will take responsibility for the child or not.

Once the father agrees to take responsibility, he has agreed to take responsibility.

If they later break up, it's still his problem. He can't later walk away without paying.

My proposal is to deal with a man who does not want to be a father and can say so before any baby is born.

I hope that makes sense.

[Pithlet]

377. It does

But it still doesn't take away from the fact that the child had no choice in the matter, and it is the child who suffers. No matter how you cut it; now matter how you wish it not to be so, a child with the support of both parents monetarily is going to do a lot better than a child with only one. Unless we drastically change how things are done in this country, with living (I mean, really, actual living) wages, good schools no matter where you live, universal health care for all, then there is no way that a child won't suffer from one parent (mother or father) abdicating their financial responsibility.

Hell, even outside of poverty, sometimes it can come down to whether or not the child gets to go to college. A single parent could better save for college if they aren't trying to do it all on their own.

The bottom line is the child. Of all the people involved in the scenario, it is the child who least deserves to get f*cked over.

[Yupster]

381. The child deserves to be hurt least

I agree.

That's why I want aid to children from the government to be radically increased.

Looking at it from the child's point of view, radically increasing aid to him will not happen by more squuezing of absent dads. Most dads aren't doing so well themselves these days. There's only so much you can get from an unemployed person or someone making low wages.

If we want the child to get much more, it must come from the government. Only the government has that kind of resources it can muster for such a big project.

I guess I don't understand why so many women speak so forcefully against this idea.

I would think they would see it as in their kid's best interest to get $ 1,000 a month from the government rather than constantly having to hunt down an absent dad for $ 500 per month.

I would think women would support that change.

I know I'm never going to be in this situation, but I will still be happy to support such a change. I can even afford my tax rate to go from 25-27 % to do it.

[Pithlet]

382. If things were so

that raising a child on one income would not be drastically different, then I would agree with you.

If we lived in a country where enough people would gladly pay enough taxes so that ALL children are taken care of, and well above the poverty line, then I would agree with you.

If corporation were willing to pay a living wage instead of lobbying government and spreading misinformation about how crushing a living wage would be to the economy, then I would agree with you.

When children are a higher priority than war and greed in this country, and the world, then I'll agree with you.

Because it isn't that I don't sympathize with the plight of someone forced into parenthood who isn't ready or willing. And if it made no difference to the wellbeing of a child, then I wouldn't be so pressed to demand that both parents step up to their obligation. I just don't have enough faith that it will be that way any time soon. And it damn sure isn't that way now.

[liberalhistorian]

264. He DID have a decision and a choice!

HE COULD HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO HAVE SEX! WOMEN DON'T GET PREGNANT ON THEIR OWN! Jesus H. Christ on a raft with roller blades, how many fucking times does that have to be said? Women don't hold a gun to men's heads and force the men to have sex with them, do they? No, somehow I don't think so. They just don't want to be responsible for the possible end results, that's all.

[Yupster]

275. Sounds like a pro-life argument to me

SHE COULD HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO HAVE SEX ! No one put a gun to her head. She knew she might get pregnant.

Now that she's pregnant she just doesn't want to be responsible for the end results. She made her choice when she had sex. Now she wants an abortion because she just doesn't want to be responsible for the results that came from her actions.

This is not a good argument for us to be making.

Many have worked for decades separating the sex act from the birthing act and showing there needs to be a decision made between the two. Now the same people are insisting that the two acts should be tied together but just for men.

I don't think that's a reasonable argument long term.

[Bat Boy]

103. That's the difference. You would have to search.

or you could try this. Ask your women friends. My guess is you know more than one that has been through this in some form or another.

Then when you find a woman who trusts you enough to tell you what's really in her heart about this, shut up and really listen.

I've had it with whiny men who believe that this process only occurs in their dicks or their wallet. The women I know...mark that, the women I know personally, have been through the financial, emotional, societal hell. They've chosen to have the baby, they've chosen abortion. They've been through the spectrum, in ways that a man could never understand.

These women are nothing short of heroic, and the decision was theirs.

[Baltimoreboy]

108. If the woman chooses to raise a child on her own

Then that should be her choice. However, she should have no right to make the same "heroic" decision for the man as well. Let him choose to be heroic or not.

I know this might shock the women on the board, but many men don't care for children the same way they do. So if they feel it only impacts their dicks or wallets, that's why.

[Bat Boy]

118. So what you're really upset with....

...is the fact that your friend is being forced to be "heroic" rather than exercise his God given right to be an asshole?

Because who would deny their own child, no matter what the circumstances?

Edited to remove nastiness.

[Baltimoreboy]

121. Actually, he has no rights here

Not even the right to be left alone.

He is doing the best he can in that regard. All negotiations are now in the hands of the lawyer and he has gotten a restraining order against her for him and his son.

I love all these rabid defenders of abortion who see no problem with all of this. If abortion is so easy, then this shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I think both people should have some sort of choice.

[Bat Boy]

133. He has the right to an attorney, which he has apparently exercised.

He has the right to let the courts decide.

He had the right to refuse to have sex. He also had the right to wear a condom.

The "has no rights" argument is a simplictic abdication.

But I understand why. Rights come with responsibility. Your friend doesn't want the responsibility, so naturally it would appear that he had no rights.

He's got rights. He just doesn't like the rights he has.

[Baltimoreboy]

136. There is nothing for the courts to decide other than amount

He exercised his right to wear a condom. He has no rights beyond that.

He took responsible choices and only had sex with a partner who vowed to the world not to have kids. Too bad she lied and he pays for it.

I hope the child learns what a prize mommy is.

[Bat Boy]

176. He wouldn't be the first to impregnate a woman and blame her.

And he won't be the last.

The fact of the matter is that when two people crawl into bed they share the responsibility. And one of the things that sometimes happens when people crawl into bed, condom or no, is pregnancy.

If he didn't know that going in then there are bigger problems.

[Baltimoreboy]

209. He knew that if that happened she said she'd get an abortion

There was nothing more to know.

[Pithlet]

237. He took that chance that she'd keep her word.

Look, I think it is indefensible what she did, if your story is indeed the whole story. However, he decided that the risk of pregnancy, and the likelihood that she'd keep her word, was worth it for the sex. He DID make a decision. It's not fair for the child that he helped create, false premise or no, to suffer. If he thinks he's morally absolved from having anything to do with the child because the woman lied, then he's mistaken.

[Yupster]

307. No reason for the child to suffer

Whether the check comes from the government or the absent dada, it will buy the same amount of diapers.

[Pithlet]

359. Yeah, but instead of the father, who SHOULD be paying

It's you and me. And it is about more than diapers. Come on, you're a parent. You know that. Really, shame on you.

[Yupster]

368. Yes we all should pay

We are our brother's keepers -- especially if our brothers are small children.

You're criticising me for something? I don't know what.

You're saying that there's a difference to the kid if the check comes from an absent dad who wants nothing to do with him or from the government?

I guess I don't see the difference. What is it?

Are you saying men should be better dads than that?

I agree with you, but the question isn't what we think is right. It's what the law should force.

In my opinion the law shouldn't force any man to be a father, good or bad. -- or mother either for that matter.

[Pithlet]

375. There is no difference?

Really? Then children who grew up on welfare always have equal childhoods to those who did not? Are you out of your mind? Ask enough kids who were raised on welfare, and a majority would probably tell you they would have chosen otherwise.

I'm criticizing you for having such a cavalier attitude about plunging a child into poverty, dependent upon the government, instead of making BOTH parents have responsibility.

My shame on you was based just on that; that you seem to think there is no difference between making a parent pay, and leaving it up to an already overburdened state. Just buy the kid diapers and be done. Leave the poor non-custodial parent alone. A cavalier and heartless attitude, and I am indeed criticizing you on it.

[Yupster]

378. I guess I just don't see it

If an ignoring dad sends a kid $ 500 per month, or the state sends him $ 500 per month why would one be in poverty if not the other? I don't see the difference? It's the same amount of money either way.

I am not plunging either into poverty. The kid gets $ 500 per month either way. Is that too little for one? Well then it's too little for the other too. I don't see the difference.

Will the kid on welfare do well? Statistics aren't too kind, but the stats are just as bad for the kid with the absent dad.

If they're both getting the same money, and neither one has a dad around, I guess I just don't see the difference?

Let's work toward getting that kid more money and let's all be willing to pay for it, not trying to chase down some poor guy who lost the busted condom lottery one night when he was 17.

[Pithlet]

379. Things are just too tight as it is

to add to the problem. That is the difference. We live in a society that begrudges giving money to the "lazy poor" and that comes from both sides of the political spectrum. Poverty is low down on the list of priorities for both major parties these days. Funding for programs for children are dwindling every day.

It's not always 500 dollars a month. For instance, if if my husband and I had never gotten married, and he left me when our firstborn came along, he'd be paying a lot more than that. And it is money that my son is entitled to. If I'd been left to raise him on my own, we would not be in poverty, but we'd be struggling. Why is that fair? Why wasn't my partner responsible at that time? Because I could have had an abortion? And that changes things for my child who already exists how?

You aren't willing to let the poor guy who lost the busted condom lottery pay for it, but you are the poor woman? Just because abortion is legal? That makes no sense to me.

[Yupster]

383. But under my proposal, don't you see

your husband would still pay.

He would have agreed to take responsibility for the child before its birth. He could not then walk away from it later.

My change is for men who announce in writing before the birth of the child that they will not take responsibility for it.

Then it is your decision whether you want to have the kid on your own with generous help from the state, or abort, or adopt it.

It's your choice, with full knowledge ahead of time, but

if your mate says he's good for responsibility, then he can't back out later.

[Pithlet]

386. No

For whatever reason, the child has come to be, no matter what the husband agreed to. It doesn't matter what the mother's choice was. What kind of a choice is it anyway, if a woman is poor, and their partner can say "well, I don't want anything to do with this". Either way, the responsibility of making that choice, and living with it, would be entirely heaped on the woman. All the man would has to do is sign a paper. Once again, the balance is tipped against the woman, the way it always has. Women have always been held more responsible for unwanted pregnancies, even with child support enforced. Let's just tip the scales even more against them by giving men an opt out clause.

Edited for clarity.

[smirkymonkey]

247. Well put! LOL

wish you hadn't edited out the rest of it! :)

[hippywife]

92. Not feeling sorry for your friend at all.

Birth control is not solely the responsibility of the woman. It takes two to either get pregnant or prevent it. If you're man enough to use it, you better be man enough to use it wisely.

[Baltimoreboy]

100. He used it

It still happened.

[Tansy_Gold]

157. First rule of sex for men

Never ever ever have sex with a woman whose child you wouldn't want to support for twenty years.

Second rule: Read First rule until it sinks in.

When I think of all the women who fell for the line "If anything happens, honey, you know I'll take care of you and the baby" and then had the dirty rotten bastards walk out, I have not one tiny drop of sympathy for your "friend." And any man who hasn't learned the lesson by now that the tables have turned is just a dumb shit who deserves whatever happens to him.

It's a real shame your "friend's" son will have to give up his fancy schmancy private school and all the goodies his daddy could have given him if only his daddy had kept his dick in his pants. It's a shame your "friend's" son will grow up blaming a sibling he'll never know, a sibling who will never have a chance to defend her or himself against the slander. But it'll be even more of a shame if that sibling grows up without the support she or he is entitled to and has to grow up on welfare or in poverty, all because your "friend" couldn't keep his friend under control.

[Baltimoreboy]

210. Again, women are perfect and men are evil

That seems to be the attitude here. A woman can decide anything and force the man to deal with the result. Men have no rights. Men are the inferior part of the species, etc.

I wish you could imagine how upset you would feel if the woman was being forced to act by the man.

[Pithlet]

239. If we're going to talk about false attitudes

I'll take that one over the women are wallet sucking uteri on legs that others seem to be taking.

[Dorian Gray]

333. G-D!

I spit my water out. "Wallet sucking uteri!"

I agree. There are arguments here that women are out to get men. Let's face it. No matter how much your "friend" is ordered by the court to pay, the woman will pay the brunt of bringing up baby.

She could have made a different choice. Of course. But, she didn't want to. Your "friend" could have made a different choice. He didn't. Now they are both living with consequences. If it makes you feel better, you can tell your "friend" to take a runner. Lots of men do it to avoid paying a couple of hundred a month, leaving the woman to pay for raising the child on her own. I am sure that there are internet clubs that will help your "friend" learn the best ways to avoid the courts in this matter. Do you think that will make your "friend" feel better?

My young brother thought he got a girl pregnant in high school once. Despite talk about her getting an abortion, at sixteen he never had doubt that whatever decision SHE MADE, he would financially support her. (Despite the fact that they were not in a long-term committed relationship!) Good to see that at sixteen, my little brother was more of a man than your "friend" who is both a professional AND a father.

[kiahzero]

336. She broke a contract

Why is that being glossed over? It's an important detail.

[Baltimoreboy]

340. Unfortunately it's not binding

And there is no point in suing her, though if it would further harm her, might be worth it.

[kiahzero]

341. Oral contracts are, in fact, binding

They are just as binding as written contracts. The only advantage of a written contract is that you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that both parties agreed.

If the woman admits that she changed her mind, then there's no question that she was in breach of contract.

[Baltimoreboy]

346. Good luck getting a court to rule in your favor

Maryland courts seldom even give custody to men. This wouldn't happen in 100 years.

[kiahzero]

349. That doesn't change the fact that they're binding

It just means that the courts are ignoring the contract for some reason or another.

[Baltimoreboy]

405. The courts in MD are openly biased

against men. So that is a big limitation.

[Yupster]

370. Maybe, but

tell that to Larry Bird, or a hundred other NBA players.

"Let's face it. No matter how much your "friend" is ordered by the court to pay, the woman will pay the brunt of bringing up baby."

[Tansy_Gold]

242. No, women aren't perfect, and men aren't inherently evil

(although sometimes I wonder)

All that we're saying is that in your friend's individual case, which you are so concerned about -- so concerned, in fact, that one would almost think it's your money -- the woman lied/changed her mind and the guy feels it's not fair for him to have to pay for the kid.

He had a choice -- have sex with her and risk fertilizing her egg or not have sex with her. He ought to know by now that condoms break and women lie. He's got one child old enough to be in school, so the guy isn't like fifteen years old.

My son-in-law is in a similar situation. His first wife swore she couldn't get pregnant but she did, within a few months of the wedding. Soon enough to trap him into staying in what had already become a violently unstable relationship. Their son was only two when the father finally got a divorce and got out, but he never never never suggested that he wasn't responsible for the support of that child.

Is it different because they were married? Maybe. But your friend "knew" this woman well enough to have sex with her, so I don't get the difference that a piece of paper makes between whether or not he's responsible for getting her pregnant. My son-in-law pays his support every month, even though his ex-wife was pregnant by another man (one-night-stand) before the divorce was final and she has never asked the father of this second child for a penny. She has even said, in papers filed with the court, that she feels her ex-husband is more obligated to pay support because he married a woman (my daughter) who isn't a Christian!

One of my best friends of more than forty years was treated like dirt by his first wife, who walked out on him and a nine-month-old baby. His second wife wasn't much better. But he was willing to try again because he likes kids and wanted to have more. So wife #3 has two babies in the first two years they were married, and then she turns into a crazy person. Her objective was to get as much money out of him as possible -- which she did by kidnapping the children (against a custody order) and hiding them for two years. He spent well over a quarter of a million dollars on private detectives and legal fees trying to find his ex-wife and children. And when he finally found them, in New Jersey, the first thing she did was swear out a warrant for his arrest for non-payment of support. Of course, he HAD paid the support, but having no valid address for her, the checks came back. He was not thrown in jail.

Women can be real bitches at times, some of them worse than others. My ex-sister-in-law abandoned her two babies with my brother because she got tired of being a mommy. But the behavior of a woman DOES NOT IN ANY WAY NEGATE THE OBLIGATION OF A MAN TO PROVIDE SOME SUPPORT FOR THE CHILD BORN AS A RESULT OF HIS SPERM FERTILIZING SOME WOMAN'S OVUM.

Get over it. As we used to say, fork it over, fuckhead.

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yupster]

280. I am also surprised at the comments on this

board often when this topic comes up.

My favorites are the generic slaps at all men comments like...

if men got pregnant there would be a Department of easing men's pain on every corner.

Is that anything other than just a generic putdown of men?

My other favorites are the ones that go "that's just the way life is baby. Live with it and take out your wallet."

And this is on a board where people are working for a more fair and progressive society.

[NightTrain]

385. I've long followed that rule.

Which may explain why the last time I slept with a woman was in 1994! :cry:

[smirkymonkey]

246. You don't get it, do you?

He made the decision to have sex with this woman. If he was so damn concerned about his other son, who - poor thing - can not go to private school, he should have thought about that in the first place.

Sorry, but you play, you pay.

[dorktv]

2. Unless he is the doctor, no man should have any say.

No man would EVER have to handle the pregnancy except as a bystander. The woman is the only one who knows weither or not she can carry the pregnancy to term or not. She can not escape that pregnancy no matter what, the male on the other hand can just walk completely away.

[liberalhistorian]

9. Ain't that the truth! And that's exactly

what happened to me, I had to deal with it no matter what and he just walked away because he could.

[dorktv]

11. And because he was a sleazeball.

[freetobegay]

3. If a man wants an abortion let him have one!

Other than that A man has no business telling a woman what to do with her body.

[NC_Nurse]

4. My body, my decision.

If men think about the possibility of a pregnancy and talk to their sexual partner(s) ahead of time about it (or choose to take responsibilty for preventing a pregnancy themselves), then they have a say. If they ignore the potential for conception, they risk being ignored if one occurs.

[Baltimoreboy]

Women change their minds

Happened to a friend of mine quite recently. Date got pregnant and went from not wanting kids to wanting THAT kid over night. He had no say and now owes about 18 years worth of support.

Women seem pro-Choice -- their choice only.

[Susang]

32. Your friend was incapable of using birth control?

I think we all know the risks of having sex, even with birth control. No offense, but your friend had his enjoyment and now he has to learn what responsibility means. It may not seem fair, but is the choice she faced fair? We all know that life and by extension, biology, is not fair.

After all, your friend could have easily said:

A. "Sorry but I don't know you well enough to have sex with you", and walk away.

Or:

B. "I'm sorry, but I just won't have sex without a condom. That's my CHOICE."

I find it rather disturbing that the only thing you mention about your friend's responsibility towards his future child is how he owes money. Disturbing, but not surprising, as these discussions often seem to morph into anger over child support . Yet, for some reason, many of the same posters violently oppose abortion rights. To me, that seems to make it more about control than about morality.

[Baltimoreboy]

38. He used and then was used

She still got pregnant.

And he did everything right. They discussed it ahead of time. Heck, she didn't even want kids. He used birth control, but she still got pregnant.

It might not seem fair? That's because the woman is making a choice for the man, not just for herself.

And he did know her well enough to have sex with her. But you can't compel a woman to make a decision. Somehow, though, she can compel him to pay.

I didn't mention other things he might or might not be obligated to do because a court can't order them. He can't be ordered to be a father to the child. He can be ordered to pay through the nose until that child is 18.

[Susang]

46. So, your friend didn't make the choice to have sex?

Your friend was not an adult and did not know that pregnancy was still a risk? Your friend does not understand basic biology? I'll bet his "date" does.

Again, why the obsession with money?

[Baltimoreboy]

50. She made the same choice to have sex

With the same understanding that there would be no children under any circumstances.

The obsession with money is the idea of paying it for 18 years. How would you like the bill?

[Susang]

72. You think she's not paying?

:eyes:

Again, why this obsession with money above all else?

[Baltimoreboy]

77. Because that is ALL this issue impacts him

He severed all ties with the woman who lied to him. He is now merely an involuntary sperm donor and ATM.

[Susang]

95. You don't really believe that?

If so, than your friend must be one cold man indeed and I am sorry for his children.

[Baltimoreboy]

101. He cares deeply for his son

And wants nothing to do with another child. That's not cold, it's realistic.

[Susang]

123. Please re-read your last post

And tell me that isn't cold.

After all, don't you think his son might just want to know his own half brother or sister? Isn't his choice to not see this child going to adversely affect his other child?

This isn't about abortion at all is it? This is about money, control, pride and anger towards a single woman. Therefore, I am out of this as of now, since my interest is not in discussing your and your friend's personal life any further.

[Baltimoreboy]

131. He doesn't have a half-brother or sister

That other child will have no contact with him -- ever.

No, this is about choice. He made a choice not to have a child with this woman. She overruled him. Imagine the reverse and get back to me.

[Tansy_Gold]

198. Imagine the reverse? What would that be?

That he forced her to have the child against her will?

That alternative is discussed down thread. It's absurd, and it doesn't fit this situation at all.


Or that she has to pay him child support?

For what? She's the one with the kid, not him.



Or that he wants the child and she doesn't?

Or that he raped her and forced her to become pregnant?

Or that he promised her she wouldn't get pregnant and he didn't want kids. . . .oh, wait, that's what happened, isn't it.


Seriously, I don't know what you mean.

[Baltimoreboy]

211. The reverse is obvious

The man makes the decision for the woman's next 18-21 years of her life.

But we all agree that is wrong. Somehow the woman making the decision for the man is OK with all of you.

[Tansy_Gold]

255. No, that's not the reverse.

I'm not a logician, so I don't know what it is, but it's not the reverse.

If/When a man forces a woman to carry a child against her will, he is imposing a life-long physical, emotional, and financial responsibility on her, not to mention the inherent rsks. She has already gone beyond the point of "risking" pregnancy: she's there, and now her choice to stop being pregnant is taken away from her. While she may have "chosen" to risk becoming pregnant, the choice to end being pregnant is removed.

Remember, there are TWO risks involved in sex for women: becoming pregnant and staying pregnant. that implies TWO choices for women: to have sex (or not) and to stay pregnant (or not).

What you want is for this woman, who may or may not have lied or cheated or misrepresented herself, to absolve your "friend" of all responsibility for his actions. His ONLY responsibility is financial, and he had that responsibility as soon as he put his penis into her vagina, regardless how many layers of latex came between.

HE TOOK THAT RISK, and now you want her to relieve him of the single responsibility that risk entailed.

What unconscionable selfishness.

[Baltimoreboy]

409. HIs responsibility lasts 18-21 years and he has no say

Yes, there are two decision points. They both get options at the first one -- choosing to have sex. Men get no option at the second one. What I want is him to have the option to either commiting to support that fetus or not. She can then use that information to make her choice on whether to have an abortion. If she has one, problem solved. If not, it's her problem.

[smirkymonkey]

248. You nailed it.

"This isn't about abortion at all is it? This is about money, control, pride and anger towards a single woman."

When it comes to the issue of men and their anti-choice stances, your statement is usually what is at the bottom of it.

[Pithlet]

153. The second child is every bit as much his child

as his son is. He is that child's father. It is wrong for him to push that child away and have no contact with him over bitterness he feels over how he was treated by his exgirlfriend. It's pretty dirty what she did, but he's no better for punishing an innocent child who had no say in the matter at all.

[Baltimoreboy]

212. Thanks at least for acknowledging what she did is wrong

But sorry, she wanted to kidnap him into fatherhood. Few men would respond well to that.

He is fulfilling his legal obligation, nothing more.

[Pithlet]

238. Sorry, but there is nothing noble in that in the least

It is not that child's fault. I'm glad your friend thinks he's sticking to his principles, and he may have every right to do so. But, I think he's morally in the wrong.

[Yupster]

162. Many women care deeply about children too

yet they realize that this is not the right time in their lives to have one. Thankfully women have that choie.

Can't something be worked out so men have that choice too?

[Pithlet]

240. They already have that choice

Funny, but most of the men in my life have managed to not become fathers when they weren't ready. Unwanted pregnancies happen. Why should it be only the woman who bears the burden and the responsibility, no matter what choice she makes? Why should men be able to have sex at will, and not have to worry about the consequences because he won't have to; it's all up to the woman, because she happens to be the one with the uterus? After all, if she can't do it on her own, than society will help. The man can go on living his lifestyle with no worries. How is that fair?

[Yupster]

285. How is that fair?

If a woman wants the absolute choice to make the decision over whether the baby is born or not of course she should also bear the absolute responsibility for her decision. With decision comes responsibility.

[Pithlet]

358. Punish the woman and a child because of choice

Because enough people decided that a woman should have a choice, then woman and children everywhere are on their own, and men can just walk away if they want to and shoulder none of that responsibility, even though that child is half theirs, and that child asked for none of this.

What if a woman signs an affidavit that she is against the choice, and would never have an abortion? Would you make the man pay up then? Is this really about punishment for choice?

[Yupster]

373. If a woman promised to be a pro-lifer forever

it wouldn't change the fact that no woman should be forced by the state to be a mother, and no man should be forced by the state to be a father.

That would just be her decision. It wouldn't add or take away from any right to my own decision.

It's just like a woman who pledges to be abstinant until marriage so she will never have to bear a child outside of wedlock.

That's nice, and I can even respect her for it, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I can do in my life. Certainly not legally.

[Yupster]

283. I would do the same

as your friend.

Having sex should not mean you agree to be a parent. For a woman or a man.

[Yupster]

282. A sperm donor is not a father

An adoptive parent can be every bit a father as anyone else. DNA is not what makes a father.

The ironic part is that courts have ruled against men who brought up kids that they thought were there's, but then it turns out the woman cheated on him and they weren't his. Still the court orders him to pay child support because he has acted like a father.

This man (this guy's friend) did not want to be a father and society should not force him to be one. Just like society should never force a woman to be a mother just because she got unintentionally pregnant.

[jdj]

109. What is this, your boyfriend or something?

Keerist!!

[Baltimoreboy]

112. My how intelligent

Got any more words of wisdom?

[jdj]

137. yes, be square with him, tell him how you feel

tell him you know about the child support, and that it doesn't bother you.

[merh]

110. Do you think a woman has the right to tell her boyfriend/lover he

must have a vasectomey? Or he can't have a vasectomey?

The snip snip of a vasectomey is not quite as invasive as a tubal ligation, abortion and/or child birth.

[Baltimoreboy]

116. She can tell him she will have the child if she gets pregnant

Of course, even if she tells him she won't, it doesn't matter. She has final say. He has none.

[merh]

144. Is that it - the final say - is that what bugs you

the final say, the final control? He can begin the big adventure with total control if he so choses. Why wait for final say when you control the situation from the get go. He knows the risks and he decides to take the gamble - that's his choice.

Its the final say that bothers you, not responsibility.

[Baltimoreboy]

146. She should have the final say over her life, he over his

She is making HIS decisions for him while he can't do the same in return.

[merh]

151. He made his decision when he failed to "protect himself" from being

put in this situation. He is an adult, he knows how these things happen and he is in control of is body. If he didn't adequately protect himself, then he made the choice.

[kiahzero]

202. What's different between that attitude and

"She made her decision when she didn't protect herself from being put in this situation. She is an adult, she knows how these things happen, and she is in control of her body. If she didn't adequately protect herself, then she made the choice."

When you make an argument like that, you end up DRASTICALLY weakening the pro-choice argument.

[merh]

226. Right, and her choices continue 9 months as it is her body

It in no way weakens the pro-choice argument.

[smirkymonkey]

249. That's right! Why do you think the anti-choice

movement is so heavily dominated by men?

Only men can have the final say, didn't you know?

[merh]

252. Silly me - I should have made that connection!!

Thanks for helping me with that realization. :think:

[Cats Against Frist]

219. Baltimore Boy

You're right. It's not fair, and it's not a good situation. I do see where you're coming from, and that there's a certain imbalance. But the sad thing is that all the SOLUTIONS to that imbalance cause as many problems as the imbalance, itself.

What I'm far more concerned about is the very well-meaning, caring man who gets someone pregnant and then WANTS the child, but the woman has an abortion.

Don't get me wrong -- the man should have no decision over the woman's body, but to say that he has no right to the "entity" or "possibility" (I will not fall into the trap of calling it a child), is kind of callous, in itself.

So, I do feel for your ideas -- and your friend (up to the point where he vows not to have anything to do with his child).

But the solutions cause as many problems as the imbalance. If men were allowed to opt-out, then men with nefarious purposes could fuck around, with no consequences. Surely, you see this other side of the coin, right?

If you or your friend are really frustrated about it, the best way to do something about it is to volunteer or donate to Planned Parenthood, and lobby for sex-education programs, tell your male friends, and raise you children (male and female) to respect the act of sex, to be suspicious of everyone, etc., and to have sex with someone that they know they can TRULY TRUST.

This is a complex situation, and automatically giving males the right to sign away paternity has a very dark side. No, I don't think what the woman did to your friend was "right." I am saddened by males who wish to have a baby, and the baby gets aborted. But you have to start at square one, which is no one can have control over another person's body, meaning the whole unfortunate situation of unwanted pregnancy takes place inside a human being's body, and that person has to have control over her body. I, from my ivory apartment, think she should have done what she promised. She didn't. It's not the child's fault. The whole things sucks.

I understand your emotions, and they do have validity, though, as well as your friend's.

[merh]

47. If men were so responsible and worried about accidentally getting someone

pregnant and being stuck with child support, they would have a vasectomy so they could continue to sew their seeds. Men have a choice and reproductive rights too. Vasectomies are less invasive than tubal ligations, no matter what a man thinks. Also vasectomies are easier to reverse and the success of the reversals are higher.

[Susang]

51. Right on merh!

:yourock:

[Baltimoreboy]

53. So a woman has infinite choice

The man's only choices are to have surgery or not have sex?

That's a little unbalanced dontcha think?

Like I said, freedom of choice for women only.

[drthais]

60. NO!

IT is not unbalanced

I swear, it just GALLS me
to hear men go on about CHOICES here
only women can get pregnant
try THAT predicament!

there is no comparison

[Baltimoreboy]

67. However, abortion is a perfectly legal and safe procedure

Every thread about abortion stresses that in fact. So all the man wants is the woman to have a perfectly safe and legal procedure OR not be able to hold him up for ransom.

[merh]

68. What a woman's choice is have a baby or no sex -

if a woman becomes pregnant, then she makes the choice what to do with her body. Men can chose not to be put in the position of "getting stuck" with child support for 21 years by proper birth control (how many condoms must one wear to be sure, really sure) or a vasectomey or abstinence. Its your body, its your choice, you have the control over it and your control is limited to your body.

Sorry, you can't have children, it is impossible, so you have no say regarding a woman's choice to carry the child for 9 months or to have an abortion.

[Susang]

81. Okay, right back atcha

The woman's only choices are to have surgery (an abortion), or surgery/natural childbirth, or not have sex?

Same damn thing?

Look, I'm sorry life isn't fair. You know what? I don't think its fair that I have to bleed out my genitals every month and you don't. I also don't think its fair that I have to go through menopause, complete with hot flashes while men do not. This does not make me want to punish men just because they do not have to endure what I have to endure.

[Baltimoreboy]

85. No, not even close to the same thing

In a fair society, both people get the same rights to make the decision. If the man can be billed for 18 or more years, he should have some say in ending the pregnancy.

Your complaint is one of biology. Mine is one of law. There is a big difference.

[Susang]

181. You got that right

Law are written predominantly by men and mostly favor men.

[Baltimoreboy]

213. This one sure doesn't

How do you explain that?

[Susang]

230. Explaination is relatively easy

The law is written to protect the child's welfare, not your friend's wallet. The reason that laws like this exist in the first place is that so many men were negligent in supporting their offspring, leaving them to be raised in poverty.

It is also written to help offset the cost of welfare, since due to so many bio-dads not contributing to the support of their offspring, the state ends up paying more in aid to dependant children. Keeping children out of poverty benefits everyone, men and women.

[shugah]

93. the man's choices

first, obviously, as already mentioned - not have sex

second - a great choice for a man who was really concerned so obsessively about having to PAY FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS - a vasectomy

third - have sex only in a relationship in which both parties are in agreement about reproduction - no REALLY in agreement - which it appears your friend was actually not...

and while i feel ever-so-bad for your poor friend (not really ;-) ) i know at least a dozen women, without looking far at all, who are single mothers that have never received cent one from the man who fathered their child - no matter what the court has ordered.

hmm... i don't know - maybe your friend is just dumb. first he gets saddled with a kid he never wanted, then he has to pay and pay and pay - and yet there are thousands of men all over this country that have (biologically) fathered children and have never taken any responsibility for it, financially, or otherwise.

i guess you need to start your own thread: what is my friend missing?

i have to say that i am slightly confused by your appearance on this thread. is your stance that a man should be able to force a woman have an abortion?

[Baltimoreboy]

104. He chose #3

He was in a relationship where the issue had been discussed on several occasions. She got pregnant and had a complete change of heart.

My stance is that a woman shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for an unwanted child. That obligates the woman not at all.

[shugah]

139. apparently your friend

was willingly misled.

but the truth is, i'm sure there are many ways for your guy not to pay. and since, by your telling of the tale, what he most wants is no financial responsibility - followed closely by no responsibility what-so-ever - i'm sure if he studies the problem of his unwanted child closely enough that he will find a way to extricate himself from his problem. that's all good on him! maybe he can brag about it on the golf course. ;-)

but, please clarify. you say: "My stance is that a woman shouldn't be able to force a man to pay for an unwanted child." i asked you if your stance was that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. it would appear - and please correct me if i am reading your posts wrong - that the answer to all your friends problems would be if this woman had simply had an abortion.

[Baltimoreboy]

145. Whether she has an abortion is her choice

Whether or not he pays for the unwanted child should be his and he should have to make that clear (legally binding) before she makes her decision.

[jdj]

117. yes. Freedom of choice for women only.

your'e getting there.

[Tight_rope]

197. Oh well...he should have use a "ONE FOOT SOCK"!

[Baltimoreboy]

25. Women change their minds

Happened to a friend of mine quite recently. Date got pregnant and went from not wanting kids to wanting THAT kid over night. He had no say and now owes about 18 years worth of support.

Women seem pro-Choice -- their choice only.

[Tansy_Gold]

180. Oh, of course. Men NEVER change their minds.

n/t

[Shoeempress]

5. No more than the woman wants him to have.

Ah the never ending sliding scale. Will he help raise and support the child. Will he be a Father who will always be in the child's life? Essentially only as much of a vote as the woman wants him to have, it is all her choice.

[JitterbugPerfume]

15. not all men should be shut out

of the decision . Some men truly are capable of rational thought

but it is ultimately a womans decision

[liberalhistorian]

18. Oh, I never meant to imply at all that

most men weren't capable of rational thought, far from it. But it's an entirely different situation for women than it is for men, believe me, I've experienced it.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Respectful support.

Not an easy decision for the parties involved. But ultimately, it is the women's primary decision and the male ought to respect whatever that decision is.

[liberalhistorian]

13. Yes, that's true, and in a perfect world

that would always happen. But things can often get a lot more complicated than that.

[Yupster]

165. Wouldn't it solve the problem if

the state paid the child support rather than the sperm donor?

The kid would be protected.

The woman would have the decision making power on whether the kid is born or not.

And the father would not be obligated for a decision that someone else made.

Isn't the kid the responsibility of all of us anyway?

[Tansy_Gold]

182. Actually, that's an excellent idea

All non-neutered males should pay an annual tax toward universal child support.

/sarcasm, sort of/

[Yupster]

192. No I really do think

that every person in America shares the responsibility to feed hungry children, not just males.

[Tansy_Gold]

200. But women pay their fair share

in the effort that goes into producing and rearing the children. Not paying the tax is their "compensation."

Men can't get pregnant and have babies. What you're saying is women should have the babies, raise them, change their diapers, buy their food, cook it, send them to school, help them with their homework, AND pay for them? If the women are paying the taxes, who's getting the support payments? Ken Lay?

Or just the single women whose asshole boyfriends walked out on their personal responsibility?

[Yupster]

287. Women do all those things only

if they choose to.

It's very important to keep a woman's right to choose front and center.

And who would get the support payments would be parents who cannot support their kids on their own. I would think that would be overwhelmingly women. I would seriously doubt Ken Lay would be included in that group.

[noiretextatique]

295. bullshit

women are still the ones generally stuck raising kids, and men are still generally the ones who have the option not to do that..and that includes paying for the child's support. that is the reality for most of the single mothers i know, those who actually made the choice to be single parents, and those who didn't make that choice.

[Yupster]

310. No woman is "stuck" raising a kid

We have a woman's right to choose.

The woman can have an abortion.

If she's pro-life she's not even "stuck." She can put the kid up for adoption.

[noiretextatique]

318. you are being ridiculous

a woman marries a man, they decide to have a baby together. they break up, she get custody...he flakes on child support.
that is reality...your scenario is a fnatasy.

[Yupster]

374. What are you talking about?

What's a fantasy?

Women don't have abortions?

Women don't put kids up for adoption?

Really, what the heck are you talking about?

[slutticus]

7. Ultimately, It should be up to the woman in all cases...

...however, I was once in a situation in which my girlfriend wanted me to be part of the decicion. I very much appreciated having a say in the matter.

[liberalhistorian]

16. I understand that, and that's the way

I would imagine most people would want it to be. And a lot of couples do come to a mutual decision. And I admit that there's a part of me that feels bad for men who want a say in the matter but who don't get any. But in the end, it really isn't their decision. They have the freedom to walk away from the situation and not deal with it, we gals don't have that luxury.

[MrSlayer]

10. Regardless of feelings, it's the woman's choice.

At the end of the day the woman has control over her body regardless of what anyone thinks. In those diametrically opposed situations it would most likely end the relationship. In abnormal relationships of abuse and the like it is still pretty much up to the woman. Unfortunately, it is all too often a life or death question for herself as well on both sides of the aisle.

[Carni]

12. Unless he has given birth...not a hell of a lot

That's about all I can say on the topic.

[liberalhistorian]

14. A man giving birth-

LOL, what an image!

[Carni]

17. Picture an "induced birth"

A very special kind of hell...lol

[trumad]

19. Uhhh Like if us men could have babies

do you think we'd listen to you gals? PLEASE!

If men had babies there would be an abortion station in every Texaco.

[havocmom]

20. Back in the 80s, I read about the implantation of gorilla/ape fetuses on

spleens and livers of male gorilla/apes. Gestation goes on and delivery would be like a c-section I reckon.

So if a man is serious about not standing for the aborting of 'his fetus' open him up and give it to him.

And send him a card every Mother's Day for the next 18-25 years.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Strangely enough,

it's been found that men can also carry a fetus to term, there's a place in the abdomen that could conceivably (forgive me, I couldn't think of any other word!) support a "pregnancy." Funny, I don't remember seeing any great stampede of men to their doctors to join in the fun!!!

[havocmom]

26. Anyplace with a generous blood supply would do nicely

Spleen/liver would work nicely. :evilgrin:

You're right! I never saw any of the bozos harassing health care providers at Planned Parenthood signing up to carry a fetus to term and provide for it 24/7 for the next couple of decades. Wonder why that is.
Oh, cuz they are into controlling other people's lives and don't have time to put their bodies on the line they insist others hold. Hey, sorta like AWOL bogus POTUS sending other kids off to die for his cronies...

[liberalhistorian]

28. Exactly,

you got it!

[Cheswick2.0]

44. Oh please, the hemorrhoids alone would put them on SSDI

for life.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

45. I've heard something about this before too.

Maybe some of the ex-men out there (the ones who got sex changes) might be interested.

[Raven]

21. No say at all...

not one word. This is a stupid discussion.

[Rowdyboy]

22. Exactly the same say a woman should have when a man considers

a circumcision or a vasectomy. None. Your body is the one thing you should have the right to control. Men have the right not to shoot sperm into unprotected women. Once the deed is done and the embryo formed, the decision is the woman's. Should she chose to keep the child, the male has committed himself for 18 years.

Life is often a bitch.

[UdoKier]

27. One vote.

The rest is up to the representatives and judges.


Okay, sorry for being coy. I think the question should remain a personal one rather than a legal one. Giving a man "parental rights" over a fetus opens a can of worms that most of the pro-choice crowd doesn't want to open.

[baldguy]

29. None

No one should have any say in what another adult can or should do to his or her body.

When my girlfriend told me, I felt like I had been punched in the gut. She hadn't spoken to me for a couple weeks; I was desperate worried why. She had an abortion.

Basically, SHE was scared. SHE felt young & inadequate. SHE didn't know what or how to tell me. SHE felt like shit. (And she wasn't getting any support from her Neanderthal hillbilly family.) I realized my job was to comfort & reassure her. Worrying about my own feelings when she was an emotional wreck would have been immature and selfish of me.

[Djinn]

30. Depends on the situation

I'd hope that most woman discuss it with whoever got them pregnant, obviously in some circimstances this isn't possible or wise and in the end it's up to the woman by dent of the fact that you can't force someone to have a child or an abortion, but it took two people to get into the position of having to choose so ideally this is something that both the man and woman can discuss.

I think guys do get a bit of a raw deal in that they CAN be forced to have a child against their wishes and although people generally respond with "they should have thought of that first" - that's a response that can be used by anti-abortion folks who claim the woman should have avoided pregnancy in the first place, contraception doesn't always work and human nature sometimes overtakes caution.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any solution to this problem and it's something blokes just ahve to deal with but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a man should have NO say in this.

[kiahzero]

33. Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at

I don't see this question as "controversial" so much as "difficult" - there's just no good answer. If you say that the man in question gets some say, you open the door for some women to just be incubators. If you say that the man gets no say, situations like the one raised by Baltimoreboy come up, and that's not fair either.

[sandraj]

114. good post

Unplanned pregnancies occur under all types of circumstances, so this really does depend on the situation. In a perfect world, as you point out, two people would be able to discuss it and work it out. Unfortunately that rarely happens ~ emotions run high for both men and women. In the early stages of a pregnancy a woman is agonizing over what to do, and she will most likely change her mind on a daily basis. Pregnancy is a big deal - it is a life-changing experience for a woman regardless of her marital status. On top of that, a man's first response to the emotions of the situation is often to run for the nearest exit, especially if the couple didn't know each other very well. (I don't mean to imply this happens across the board; not all men are like that.)

I do think the child support system needs reform. Forcing a man to pay child support does not turn him into a father. But beyond that, the court orders don't hold up very well once the man starts changing jobs frequently or moving from state to state. A lot of those orders, unfortunately, end being worth about as much as the paper they're written on.

And this may be simplifying the issue a little bit but if a man doesn't want to pay child support, he should also have to sign away his custodial or visitation rights. In many states this isn't allowed unless the birth mother marries and her husband wants to adopt her child. OTOH if a birth father is willing to be in the child's life, both he and the mother should commit themselves to the child's best interests and welfare.

I don't think a man should have a legal say in an abortion, but if he is willing to step up to the plate by either raising the child with the mother or on his own, and there are no weird or violent circumstances in their relationship (i.e., abuse), it's my opinion that the woman should at least consider having the baby. This is a highly personal issue for people though. I don't have any definitive answers.

[Crachet2004]

31. This is a pretty tough subject, and I am almost sure to make everyone...

Angry, and/or, think I'm an idiot, But here goes.

I support choice, but not as birth control. This is a hard world, and I know it would be hard for any woman to not bring a pregnancy to term, knowing a potential life has been denied-or at least, it should be. But in this life, sometimes that choice has got to be made, and I think the mother is the only one who should make it, because she is the one who has to LIVE with it.

Scenarios too numerous to list, wherein abortion might be the best option for mother AND child are easily conjured, by anyone with any imagination and experience of the world we live in.

But I do believe, that even if a woman is unwilling to bear the child, if the man is willing to sign papers up front that he will support the child and even take the child off her hands, if she so desires...then she should bring that baby to term, even if she doesn't want to, and even if she does'nt want the baby. She doesn't owe the father anything, he is as wrong as she is for not taking the proper precautions...but I think that in this case, she owes the potential life of that child that much-unless there are extenuating medical circumstances, etc...

And ANY pregnancy, from day one, will BE a new life, all other things being equal. Again, I understand there are times when a mother has to make a hard choice-and I would never second guess them, like when there isn't any support forthcoming from ANYONE, or if heavy drug use has been recently engaged in, etc... Life is full of hard choices.

But yeah, in the rare circumstance that it might occur, I think the man should have a say, if he is willing to be the total support of the child-even unto taking the child completely off the mothers hands, should she want nothing to do with the chiild. Both 'parents' owe the unborn potential human life THAT much. And the flip side, is that the law has come a long way in forcing support from a father, even if he doen't want the child, should the mother choose to bring the pregnancy to term, even against his wishes.

I believe in birth control, but abortion should not be taken lightly. If you have to, you have to. But everything under the sun should be given a chance to let the new life be born...even if it means giving the man a choice, too.

For what it is worth, I admire your decision. My sister made the same one , and her daughter is now fourteen. It slowed her career down, but I don't think any material advancement could ever take the place of that child, in her life.

[Djinn]

35. don't know if that's a workable solution

"But I do believe, that even if a woman is unwilling to bear the child, if the man is willing to sign papers up front that he will support the child and even take the child off her hands, if she so desires...then she should bring that baby to term, even if she doesn't want to, and even if she does'nt want the baby."

I've thought about this issue a fair bit - most of my friends a er blokes and a few of them have been in the situation of not wanting to abort or not wanting a child when the woman does.

In the above scenario, what happens if the bloke goes back on his word? or looses his ability to financially support the child, does the mother have to step in or watch the kid go hungry? does the child have to be told that "mummy didn't want you" does the woman have to take time off work that she can't afford in order to give birth?

While it'd be nice to see an equitable solution I don't think this is it - as it forces the woman to give birth against her will, and I don't see anyway that that could be acceptable to most people let alone enforced

[Crachet2004]

54. I agree my idea will not work...

It would force a woman to give birth against her will...but then again, why not? If a man is willing to accept total support, then why not?

Abortion isn't a game, and neither are relations between a man and a woman, or rather, it can get real serious, real fast...like when an unanticipated pregnancy occurs. Again, all other things being equal, any conception will come to term in nine months as a new human being...and doesn't THAT count for anything?

And of course, any child born today runs the risk of their parents falling on financial hard times...so potential hard times, to me, is no excuse to abort.

The reason I think my idea won't work, is because a woman can just go get an abortion, if she wants to, and not say anything about it. And now, there is even a morning after pill.

You can't stop progress, and you can't turn back the hands of time, and I wouldn't, even if I could.

But I'll bet if there were some way of giving some of these fathers a choice as well, there would be more children and fewer abortions-and by me, that would be a GOOD thing.

[drthais]

69. o C'MON!

as if FORCING a woman to take a pregnancy to term
is like a guy waiting to pick up an AUTO PART!

preganancy itself and delivery
is a great trial to the body of a woman
she is NOT a vehicle!
(or a refrigerator, or a storage unit)

this is very personal!
and, all said, has nothing to do with a man!
other than the fact that, together,
the two made the decision to make this a possibility!

[Crachet2004]

94. Any aborted potential human life is not "an auto part".

If a man is willing to do what he can, and accept total support, why shouldn't a woman do her part, and at least bring the new life to term...with a potential human life at stake?

As some of the pro-choice people are fond of saying to men who do not want to accept responsibility: don't play if you don't want to pay. Where is the difference? The fact is, there is none, because both parties know what might happen going in to it. The man may have to pay, and may have to pay dearly, while the woman may have to bear a child...if not rear and support him/her.

But of course, as I said, science has given women choice...because they simply do not have to consult the father...they can take a pill, or have an abortion otherwise.

But the discussion on any ample blood supply being able to support a fetus interests me. I wonder how far we are from having artificial wombs? I had no idea such experiments had been conducted, on gorillas, etc...and of course, therein may lie a solution to what I have been posting-giving the father a choice as well, and maximizing the likelihood of coming to term for the potential child.

But primarily, I would be concerned for the potential children.

[Tansy_Gold]

177. "the least she could do?" SURELY YOU JEST

I am so outraged I can hardly hit the correct keys.

Do you have any idea what you are asking, no, FORCING, women to do in this absurd scenario of yours? Have you ever been pregnant? Do you have any idea what the risks are?

"Oh, dear, well, hon, I'm sorry you got pregnant and didn't want to, but see, I think I'd like to have that baby so I'm going to MAKE you have it and then I'll cheerfully pay support for the next twenty years. Yes, yes, yes, I realize you may have trouble with high blood pressure and the nausea is making you miss work and lose income, but it's the least you can do for the good of that precious little potential life I want you to bear. And I know there's a history of diabetes in your family, but we just won't worry about that. And of course when you get fat and ugly and depressed, when you can't get in and out of the car, when you can't sleep for more than an hour at a time without having to get up and pee, when your back hurts sitting or standing or walking, when your ankles swell -- well, just think how much fun I'm going to have telling everyone I'm a dad! And I know the risks of delivery are substantial, and of course you'll have to endure all the pain and indignities on your own because I can't do any of that, but I'll be there afterward to give you a couple hundred a month toward the little tyke's support. . . . Well, no, I don't exactly want to LIVE with it, get up during the night to feed it and change its shitty diapers. . . .Well, no, I don't suppose I would be able to breast feed now, would I? . . . Take off work when it's sick? Oh, I couldn't do that. I'd lose my job! And if I lost my job I wouldn't be able to pay you that support now, would I? . . . Well, of course, I might get married to someone else some day and want to have children with her, but that wouldn't change anything very much with us. . . . ."

Yeah, right. The least she could do.

Sorry if my sarcasm drips a little thick tonight. I just can't believe there are still males on DU who think they are entitled -- yes, E N T I T L E D -- to dictate what women do with their bodies. When men can get pregnant, then I'll listen a little more to this bullshit, but until then, the only right men have is to NOT have sex if they don't want to have children. As long as women take the sole risk of pregnancy in their bodies, they have the sole right to determine if they will remain pregnant.

As I said in another thread, I will not give a centimeter on this. Not one.


Tansy Gold, mother of two

[Crachet2004]

224. In earlier posts, I indicated medical issues should be considered...

And of course, women ALSO have an option "to NOT have sex". And if you read my earlier posts, I predicated the entire scenario on the father being willing to take the child completely off the mother's hands, after birth.

And I also mentioned that often, abortion may be the only alternative for a woman, absent any form of support from the father, family, or govt.

Again, to me abortion should not be used as birth control, except as a last resort, as all life-especially human life-IS precious.

But as a practical matter, what I think doesn't really matter. Women have choice, and nothing is going to change. We cannot undo what Science has wrought, nor would I, even if I could.

BUT, if you are going to play, you need to be willing to pay...and that goes for women, as well as men. It is a moral choice, rather than anything that might be legislated. I think we try and legislate a little too much, sometimes.

From the moment of conception, we are talking about potential human life, and though unexpected pregnancy may result in a small inconvenience, that small inconvenience, or potential human life, should have every chance we can give it to survive.

And if that means giving fathers a choice as well, then if I could, I would let it be so. But further scientific breakthroughs are necessary for me to get my way...and given current Malthusian concerns, I am not holding my breath.

[Tansy_Gold]

251. "small inconvenience" my ass!

I suspect you are male and young and have never given birth.

Pregnancy is not like going to the store and picking up a sack of potatoes. It puts enormous stress on a woman's body. It is not a small inconvenience, whatever you may think. I've been there, twice. When presented with the possibility of a third pregnancy in three years, I was going to opt for an abortion -- yes, as birth control. I could not afford another child either financially or physically.

Pregnancy isn't always like on tv, where the glamorous young stars go through happy and glowing gestation and deliver in the space of a half-hour sitcom while everyone around them laughs it up.

Two friends who were pregnant the same time I was nearly died because of medical oversights; both had to have hysterectomies in their mid-20s as a result. My sister-in-law nearly died when an ectopic pregnancy ruptured her fallopian tube; she didn't even know she was pregnant and just thought she had bad cramps and a case of the flu. By the time they got her to the hospital, she required six units of blood before they even dared do surgery. My sister experienced high blood pressure throughout her pregnancy and when the baby didn't "turn" into position for a normal delivery, there was no choice but a cesarian, even though there was also a risk of a stroke.

Another friend got what appeared to be a bad case of appendicitis. All the tests showed that's what it was, but when the doctor operated, they found nothing wrong with her appendix, but she was six to eight weeks pregnant. This was in the days before laparoscopic appendectomies, so she was left with a huge vertical incision. Although they expected her to miscarry as a result, the baby seemed to thrive. The incision never healed properly, she had a long and difficult delivery, and she had health problems for years afterward.

Another friend suffered four miscarriages in three years and was about to give up and have her tubes tied, then adopt. She and her husband decided to try one more time. This time she had a textbook perfect pregnancy. . . . right up to 8 and a half months. One day she noticed that the baby wasn't moving any more. She went to the doctor and learned the baby was dead.

This is the kind of shit that makes me so furious when guys say women have no responsibility. They act like a woman takes no risks and is just trying to trick men into doing something they don't want to do.

Once again -- the ONLY FUCKING RISK A MAN TAKES IS FINANCIAL and he wants to get out of even that. he wants to be able to have his fun, fuck whoever tickles his fancy, and walk away without a care. it's ALWAYS her fault if she lets herself get pregnant.

let's move out of the 19th century and into the 21st, where ALL people are equal and ALL have SHARED responsibility for their SHARED choices.

[shimmergal]

169. Thanks, drthais!

It's true, pregnancy and childbirth take a toll on the body of a woman, and sometimes the damage isn't apparent until half a lifetime later.

Most women willingly take these chances for a wanted baby, but to expect anyone to undergo them because of somebody else's decision does put her in the position of a storage (or manufacturing?) unit.

[Djinn]

140. why not???

"It would force a woman to give birth against her will...but then again, why not?"

you can't see why forcing a woman to give birth is totally unnacceptable? are you serious?

"Again, all other things being equal, any conception will come to term in nine months as a new human being...and doesn't THAT count for anything? "

actually wrong 25% of natural conceptions do not come to term - should all those woman be investigated to see if they did something that caused the miscarriage? and the fact that it is POSSIBLE for a fetus to come to term eventually does not mean it is a human being in utero.

[sal]

37. "Is Visa OK?"

"Let me pay for that."

[Cheswick2.0]

39. as much as the woman involved wants them to

how could the answer be anything else?

[shugah]

64. thank you Cheswick!

i've been reading this thread, looking for that response.

[cally]

40. Legally, no

Morally, yes. I don't think there should be laws that say a man should have a say but I do think both partners should make the decision together. I've completely changed my mind on this one. My husband and I have been married 22 years and have two children. I cannot imagine any situation where we wouldn't both have to decide whether to have more children. (We are adamantly against having more children!) Still, I don't think any law should make us determine this together.

[bemildred]

43. Keep your pecker in your pants and you won't have to worry about it. nt

[Djinn]

49. bad argument

too easilly turned around:

"keep your legs closed and you don't have to worry about it"

[bemildred]

56. Not an argument, a strategy.

Guaranteed to keep you safe.
For arguments you have to get much more complicated.

[Djinn]

63. again too easilly turned around

woman can avoid getting preggers therefore reducing or eliminating the need for abortions. I'm just not fond of statements that can just as easilly be used to argue against abortion

[bemildred]

66. Again, not an argument. nt

[Cheswick2.0]

58. NONSENSE...big difference

He is not the one getting pregnant.
Men retain control until the sperm leaves their body. Women contain control until the fetus leaves her body.

[bemildred]

62. See? nt

[Djinn]

127. no I don't

"keep your pecker in your pants" as a reason for men not having a say in abortion is exactly like "keep your legs together" is one to not let woman have a say.

biology kinda makes this rule for us - woman actually HAVE the kid so unless that changes any time soon, it's her body and she gets to make the decision - I think that's the only statement that needs to made.

And to Cheswick - no-one said any different - the issue was whether "keeping your pecker in your pants" was a "strategy" to avoid having kids you don't want - and THAT "strategy" could also be used by woman - it's a bad "strategy" - reality throws curve balls sometimes

[bemildred]

222. It's not a reason for anything. Hello?

[Djinn]

271. OK I'll use your EXACT words

given you want to be that pedantic about it.

"keep your pecker in your pants" as a STRATEGY (your words)for men to avoid fathering kids they don't want is easilly bounced back to woman as a "strategy" to avoid abortion.

Before you get too self righteous I'm 100% for affordable and accesible abortion for anyone who wants one - I don't set time limits on it and I don't think the woman needs any reason for wanting one BUT I don't like the "men have no say" line (as opposed to women have final say) and I don't like the "keep your pecker in your pants" lines because they are flippant and and meaningless.

Hello. :eyes:

[bemildred]

361. Sigh. I really don't want to argue with you.

I think it is perfectly sensible to tell men or women that if
they wish to avoid unwanted pregnancies and the consequent issues,
they should be careful about who they get in bed with and what
they do there. So I don't really object to "turning it around" and
"bouncing it back". I don't really see it in a "war between the sexes"
mode. There are a number of asymmetries in male-female relationships.
The primacy of the female in deciding whether to abort or not is only
one, and is based on the very real fact that it's her body and that
she will have the important early role of mother to play. There are
other issues, e.g. the who pays issue and the father who does not want
to be a father issue, but compelling the woman's choice is not a
proper answer to either of those (IMHO), and that being so, one is
well advised to deal with things are they are if one likes to
maintain ones freedom of action.

As an aside, I think children deserve parents who want the job, and
if society as a whole were to step up and do a better job of making
being a parent a viable economic proposition, a lot of this argument
would go away.

[Djinn]

272. self deleted - dupe

[Baltimoreboy]

65. Wrong again

Men and women both have the same control up to the moment they have sex. At that point, women have all control and the man is an ATM if she wishes.

[jdj]

130. And I thought it was hopeless.

You are quite the quick study tonight.

[CaTeacher]

61. It is the choice of the woman alone.

It is wonderful that some women have support from their partner--and can come to a decision as a couple--but although that is nice--it is not the situation for most women.

And ultimately the woman has to have control over her body--she should not have to answer or explain what she does to any man.

[Yupster]

167. That's the pro-lifer argument you're making

Women - if you don't want to worry about having a baby just keep your legs together.

I don't think that's an argument we should be making.

[drthais]

52. ok. this is before I read the responses

of which there are many

it has ALWAYS been my opinion
that MEN have absolutely NO stake in this issue
they will never be personally faced with this choice
and therefore should have no say

and that, my dear, is that

[Baltimoreboy]

59. Financial stake

A woman retains all options and a man has none the moment a pregnancy occurs. And people wonder why there are so many absentee fathers.

[drthais]

71. wow

thats pretty viscious
absentee parents
of either sex
are guilty of self-indulgence

[Baltimoreboy]

86. He's not a parent

He had no choice in this child. He has no interest in this child.

[Tansy_Gold]

276. he had a choice not to have sex

he is a selfish creep to expect the woman to have ALL responsibility and him have none.

sheesh, guys like this almost make me wish we could just cut off their dicks instead of merely dunning them for support payments.

[Tansy_Gold]

281. If he's not a "parent," what is he?

Oh, yeah, an "involuntary" sperm donor.

He fathered a child as a result of a sex act he engaged in of his own free will. He didn't want to get her pregnant, but he did. He needs to suck it up and admit his responsibility, morally and financially.

Not that I expect him ever to do so. He reminds me of a whiny little boy who has always gotten his way and someone else has always gotten him out of his little troubles so he never had to worry about anything.

Sounds kinda familiar, now that I think about it. ring a bell with anyone here on DU?

[NightTrain]

74. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread....

Abortion: one penis, NO vote!

Now there's a bumper sticker, y'all! :bounce:

[Baltimoreboy]

82. So would that mean most women can't vote on war?

Since they can't be drafted and so few serve?

[NightTrain]

84. I'll tell Jessica Lynch you said that.

[Baltimoreboy]

87. She'd get a vote, most women would not

Using your idea, not mine.

In my opinion, democracy is all about everyone voting on every law.

[NightTrain]

120. Tell ya what....

We'll continue this conversation after you've missed a period.

[Baltimoreboy]

126. Or after you sign up for Selective Service

The difference is, I don't think anyone should be denied the right to vote, you do.

[NightTrain]

132. Already have. And I was in the Navy.

Oh, and--despite your assumptions--I was born with a penis and testicles.

The difference is, since I can't get pregnant, I feel that I've no business preaching to women what they're allowed to do with their own bodies. You do.

[Baltimoreboy]

134. Again, if men can't vote on abortion

Then women can't vote on things that impact on men.

But since we have a government we all fund and that impacts all of us, we all get to vote.

[NightTrain]

265. Bullshit!

War is a political issue; abortion is not. Or at least it shouldn't be. Rather, it should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor--hopefully with the supportive input of the father. Beyond that, abortion is nobody else's goddamned business!

[Tansy_Gold]

279. Thanks, Night Train

Since women are the mothers of the people who fight the wars, I think they should have a vote whether or not their children are sent off to kill and be killed.

Women also pay taxes that support war efforts.

Women are also frequently the victims of war.

And they do serve, in many capacities beyond combat, during a war, both as civilians and military.

[slinkerwink]

76. NO say at all, because he's not the one carrying the fetus

But I'd listen to his opinion, but his opinion shouldn't dictate what my body should do. That's my own body and I have the right to make medical decisions about it just like he does about his own body.

[beyurslf]

102. None. His "choice" ends when he lets his sperm enter her body.

From there on out, it is hers.

[Baltimoreboy]

106. So, apparently, is his wallet

[smirkymonkey]

250. Dude, you are SERIOUSLY hung up on this money trip!

Are you sure that you and "your friend" aren't the same person?

[beyurslf]

256. You make a baby and you are responsible for helping

pay for that baby. Most 7th graderes can tell you what to do to prevent getting a woman pregnant. I would start with not having sex with them, but if you must, then use a condom.

[Tansy_Gold]

257. Most seventh graders also know condoms can break

See, it's always been the rightwing's argument that abstinence is the only sure prevention for unwanted pregnancies. And it's also always been their argument that women ought to bear all the responsibility -- physical, financial, emotional -- for unwanted pregnancies because women, after all, are the ones who get pregnant. Women who get pregnant when they don't want to are, in the eyes of the rightwing, bad and evil and should be punished with children (you know, just like in the Bible.) And since the sins of the fathers fall on the children rather than on the fathers, fathers (like male gods) don't have to answer to anyone.

Ergo, men don't have to be abstinent, since they can't get pregnant, but they also don't have to be responsible, since they can't get pregnant.

Tansy's conclusion, then, is that anyone who advocates women alone should bear the full cost of child bearing and child rearing while men skate after voluntary sex must be a rightwinger.

Of course, Tansy would never accuse anyone on DU of such an attitude, unless they had already been tombstoned. . . . . .

[Monte Carlo]

107. If she wanted to abort the pregnancy, and I wanted her to reconsider...

... I would really like to think that I had some say about what happened.

I personally don't like abortion, and if a woman was carrying a child that was half mine that she wanted to abort, I would feel perfectly fine telling her so. It takes two to tango. No, it would not be me carrying it for the term, but I would never be irrelevant.

[in_cog_ni_to]

122. None. It's not his body. End of subject. n/t

[TexasSissy]

124. It's primarily woman's decision. Man's opinion should be "considered."

Unfortunately, if the man admits paternity, I think the man's permission is required for abortion.

But IMO, it should be primarily, if not entirely, the woman's decision. As in your case, when push comes to shove, it ultimately is a decision that only the woman is responsible for her entire lifetime. The man can, and often does, walk away. It IS her problem primarily just because of biology.

Still, the man's opinion should not be entirely disregarded. The moment he unzipped his pants he became responsible for anything that resulted, including a child. And he's responsible for that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

143. none

[UdoKier]

148. A man has the say on...

Whether or not to insert his penis into a vagina and ejaculate...

[enigmatic]

163. Pretty simple

My wife and I are both adamatly child-free and pro-choice. We've discussed this and both agree on this:

If a man and woman have sex and fail to use birth control and the woman becomes pregnant, the guy is out of luck on regards getting a say to whether she carries the fetus to full term or gets an abortion. That's just the way it is.

But if the woman decides to carry the fetus to full-term, the man has the choice about whether he wants to become a part of the child's life and pay for child support, or sever his ties w/ the child and pay nothing. If he decides not to sever ties and not pay for the child's upbringing, it's his choice to do so. Period.

That's the way it should be.

[Yupster]

174. until they start

garnishing your wages.

I agree with you that that's how it should be though. Each person should have the choice of whether they want to be responsible or not. No one should be forced to be a parent without their consent.

[petronius]

175. I've always thought along these lines as well...

... that there should be some male version of abortion (i.e. severing all ties.) Perhaps it should include a couple hundred dollar donation to Planned Parenthood, and a symbolic medical procedure - perhaps a few hundred volts to the genitals... :)

I would definitely agree that the woman alone decides whether or not to continue the pregnancy, and the man should have to make his decision very early. The only area of unfairness would be for a woman to terminate a pregnancy that the man wants; I really see no way around that one.

[Yupster]

178. How's about this?

Upon learning she's pregnant, the woman must attempt to notify the father, or potential fathers within a stated amount of time. (how soon can a paternity test be done? I don't know).

The father then must within a certain amount of time notify in writing the mother that he will or will not take financial responsibility for the child.

Armed with this knowledge, the woman then has complete freedom to make the choice whether to terminate the pregnancy or keep it till term.

Does that create a "man's right to choose" to go along with the "woman's right to choose"?

Is this fair to both sides?

[petronius]

185. I think that's fair

They both have an equal right to choose to engage in intercourse; they both have an equal right to 'withdraw' from the pregnancy; the only thing the man can't do is have the baby over her objection, which is insolvable without forcing her to go to term unwillingly (not acceptable). I suppose I would make it an opt out situation - they guy has to actively take the step to remove himself; if he is notified in time and makes no statement then he assumes responsibility. And he doesn't get to change his mind later, regardless of how he decides...

Of course, if he opts in, it should be for far more than financial responsibility - he should be accepting all the responsibilities and rights of parenthood.

[enigmatic]

191. I don't have a problem with this..

I think it's fair to both sides.

[Tansy_Gold]

258. That still lets the man off the hook, but not the woman

She's still pregnant and has another choice to make, where he gets to make his choice AFTER the fact. In other words, he gets to have his fun and then repudiate any and all responsibility. As long as she's not pregnant, he has no worries, and if she gets pregnant, he has no worries. Sounds like a great deal to me -- if you're a guy who likes to fuck around and not get stuck.

[Yupster]

289. They each have a choice to make

after the pregnancy is discovered.

She whether she wants to be a mom or not. He whether he wants to be a dad or not.

She still has more power as she can decide the man will not be a father regardless of his views, but that's just biology. I can't see a way around that without taking away a woman's right to decide whether to be a mother or not.

So, while it still may be unfair to the man, it's as close to fair as I think it can get unless others have better ideas.

PS - her decision on whether to carry the fetus to term or not is after the fact too. Isn't it?

[noiretextatique]

290. some believe that is a sacred right

to fuck around and not get stuck, that is. one of the reasons i gave them up for women :D

[Yupster]

313. You're right

there are many very promiscuous men and women out there. I don't agree with that lifestyle, but I am not going to condemn them for not following my morals. They can judge life by their own moral codes.

[noiretextatique]

324. i was referring the men, and male culture

though i agree with you....women are catching up.

[JSJ]

166. advisory role, only n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

171. As much as the woman who is pregnant grants him

[jpgray]

173. He should have as much say as his actions entitle him to

For example, If he just knocked her up after not using protection, doesn't give a shit what happens, and tries like hell to avoid any responsibility, he doesn't deserve hardly any input. However a responsible, caring guy who used protection deserves at least some input--if he's responsible and caring, his life will be changed forever too by this decision. I don't think it's very fair to rule him out completely when he has done nothing wrong. Whose opinion gets more weight? I have no idea, but the idea of the man having no weight whatsoever is silly to me--his life will change too.

[Yupster]

179. But that's a distinction without a difference

The drunk guy who had the one night stand has no say and is not even asked his opinion. The woman decides to have the baby and hit him for child support for 18 years.

The responsible caring guy who used protection is asked for his opinion. He gives it carefully and thoughtfully that in their stage of life, a baby would not be to their advantage. Counldn't we wait till we finish school, get married and then have one?

The woman thanks the man for his well thought out and caring advice. Then she tells him she has decided not to take his advice. Then she decides to have the baby and hit the guy up for 18 years of child support.

The second example sounds nicer, but that guy had no more say than the first guy. In each case the decision is 100 % the woman's.

By the way, I agree the decision should be the woman's. I just don't think she should be able to go that step further and obligate the man to 18 years of payments because of her decision.

[cidliz2004]

184. In a word, NONE

[Zomby Woof]

188. I am extremely pro-choice

But contrary to your opinion, I shall not stifle my own when casting my votes for pro-choice candidates for office with the power to enact pro-choice laws or appoint pro-choice justices.

You damn well better be glad more than a few men have an opinion on abortion, for women's rights are also human rights and I intend to help safeguard them for the betterment of this species.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zomby Woof]

194. did I say otherwise?

Find where I said otherwise. I just want you to consider the ramifications of men not being "allowed" opinions on abortion. Denying a woman her reproductive freedom is just as abhorrent as prohibiting free speech, especially when said speech is used to further and reinforce those reproductive rights.

I will get over myself when you learn the basics of logic, civics, and biology too.

[cidliz2004]

362. Basics?

You need to review the "basics" of biology

biology basics, women get pregnant and carry the child to term or otherwise

logic basics, women have to TELL the man that she is pregnant

Women can be doctors, women can get blackmarket "abortion" drugs

civics basics, Women can pass and vote and enforce laws to

So, now are you over yourself?

We all know that the more support for the woman's right to choose is the better. That should go without saying. If men as a "group" want to support this issue, Great, but when it comes right down to it, it really just makes it simpler - not possible.

[shanti]

186. none

n/t

[Andy_Stephenson]

187. None...unless

he is the father...If he is willing to take care fo the kid...I think he should have a say in the matter. Otherwise I think it is a womans sole choice.

[Swamp Rat]

189. None. No say at all.

I'm male and I say leave women to decide for themselves. I don't care if a man WANTS the baby, it's still the choice of the woman. No matter what. Period.

[genius]

190. NONE. But the best persuasion is niceness.

[Tight_rope]

195. "NO" controlling my mind...and definately has "NO" say on "MY BODY"!

I don't tell him when and how to shave.

[Don_G]

199. Abortion Haiku

That is amazing
I think that her water broke
or tampon blew up!

[radfringe]

201. when men actually carry and give birth

then they can have a say

as my Nonna use to say "if women had the first baby,and men had the second - there would be no third...."

[Yupster]

291. So your mom didn't think much of men

did she?

These blanket insults are really something.

Do women really think it's funny to just insult men in general?

[REP]

204. Men Should Not Be "Ooops!ed" Into Fatherhood

Alas, many women think that a baby is just the thing to 'keep' a man, and will 'forget' to take her Pill or find another way to become ooops! pregnant.

That said, men who are not interested in fatherhood should make damn sure that none of their sperm enters a woman's body, whether that be by vasectomy, rubbers or abstinence. Once a pregnancy is established, since it's in the woman's body, it's her decision, period.

Yes, that is very unfair to men who didn't wrap their rascals and suddenly became Daddy, but biology isn't fair that way.

In a perfect world, every pregnancy would come about only after long and serious consideration of what having a child would mean - financially, emotionally and physically.

[onebigbadwulf]

214. I think the bigger issue here...

is child support. Almost everyone agrees that a man shouldn't be allowed to force an abortion, or force the delivery of a pregnant woman.

What people have trouble with is men being forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want. Or the opposite, people who have trouble with these people.

[Baltimoreboy]

215. I agree child support is an issue

But in my friend's situation, he made it known before she got pregnant that he didn't want a child. She told him she agreed.

Suddenly that all changes and he has no legal standing to do anything other than pay.

[REP]

217. And Until He Grows A Uterus, That's How It'll Be

What was keeping him from getting vasectomy? If he isn't sterilized, then he's not serious about not having children. All birth control, even when used properly, can fail; sterilization brings that failure rate way down. Biology is so unfair - pregnancy only happens in one gender. Men have to get serious; either double-bag the johnson, get a vasectomy, or maybe even be more choosy about who they stick their dicks into. Bottom line - I didn't knock the scag up, and I sure as hell don't want to pay anymore than I already am for his spawn. If he's any kind of man, he'll own up to his mistake, suck it up, and help support the child he allegedly adores (I say allegedly, since he's bitching so much about paying child support. Boo fucking hoo).

[Yupster]

294. Exactly wolf

I don't think anyone is arguing against a woman having the right to make the decision for herself. The question is does the woman then have the right to obligate the man too for a decision she made?

[noiretextatique]

305. and even bigger issue: THE NUMBER OF MEN WHO DON'T PAY

child support. that includes men who voluntarily fathered a child.

[Pithlet]

360. And women should not be abandoned

It goes both ways. The child is innocent in all of this. It deserves the support of both parents. If one doesn't want to give emotional support, then they still have a monetary obligation, be they the mother or the father.

[Baltimoreboy]

407. No he doesn't

She is making all the decisions here and she shouldn't have that right over his life.

[Stockholm]

218. In a "normal" situation the man should be highly

involved in the discussion about a possible abortion. The final decision however lies fully with the woman. No man has a say about a womans body - period.

Thats my humble Swedish opinion.

[never_get_over_it]

220. Up to the woman

in the particular situation - if she wants to consider the father's wishes fine - if she doesn't fine. There should be no legal rights for men in making the decision too many variable circumstances. Bottom line it is the woman's body - until the fetus is viable it is her decision. If men are concerned about "getting" pregnant and their say in any decisions - my advice is to use a condom!

[cmf]

223. Her body, her choice

(I am a woman)

I think that the woman should consider her partner's feelings, but ultimately the choice comes down to her. That's it.

[FlaGranny]

225. Good lord -

what a discussion!!! It is entirely obvious that there are some/many males who just want to be free to dump their sperm anywhere they can and go their merry way. They do have a devotion to self, don't they? Doesn't sound at all democratic.

Many, many years ago someone very close to me had an affair with a married woman. The woman got pregnant at that time, by whom we still do not know for sure. The woman decided to raise the child as her husband's and the husband agreed. The someone who is very close to me was very concerned about that child, worried about him for years, and would have, in a minute, paid for that child's support if asked. There is no doubt in my mind that he would even have taken the child into his own care.

[bemildred]

227. Yeah, really.

We should have "pregnancy insurance" so that the kid could
be paid for in the unfortunate case where the bimbo du jour
decides to keep her child.

[Yupster]

299. That's what we pay taxes for

helping kids who can't get by on their own family's means. Our social programs are our pregnancy insurance, and I'm for greatly expanding them and cutting out a carrier battlegroup or two.

[bemildred]

350. I agree.

It is notable that this whole issue is much less contentious
in places like Sweden where they have a functional social safety
net.

[Yupster]

298. The man can't freely dump his sperm anywhere

unless there's a woman willing to accept it.

If you make your choice when you have sex, it should go for both sexes --- or neither. I vote neither.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

228. Zip. Zero. Nada. None. Unless he's your doctor.

Just as I wouldn't want my wife vetoing, say, prostrate surgery on me.

[RichardRay]

229. A man's choice is simple - KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS

or deal with the consequences. If you can't afford to deal with the consequences than go masturbate. Responsibility begins BEFORE the sex act, not after it.

A woman's choice starts before the sex act, and continues after it, since she carries the results of both partys' ability (or lack thereof) to act responsibility.

But if you're a guy, and you don't want to deal with children then either have a vasectomy or enjoy yourself.

Baltimore dude - was your friend raped? No? He messed up (although perhpas not alone). He needs to be obedient to the choices he's already made.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[bemildred]

235. I've heard it's lonely for a Liburul up there in Wyoming.

:hi:

[RichardRay]

244. Less so this year...

even some of Wyoming's unrelentingly conservative ranchers and miners are having a hard time stomaching the current situation. Besides, I live in Wilson (a town in Jackson Hole, which is a place) and there's actually a Democratic enclave. Of course, the lege just gerrymandered the district so that we have even less electoral umph then we did previously, but that's state politics.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[bemildred]

253. I have heard there is some disgruntlement about coal-bed methane

and such, but still a long way to go. On the other hand you
live in Jackson Hole, and the Tetons are rather awesome.

[RichardRay]

254. Although JH is still conservative Wyoming

it's still a place where civil behavior and sheer neighborliness is valued. There are folks here who feel the war in Iraq was probably necessary and don't like taxes for any reason, but they're still getting pretty darn tired of Bush's fanaticism. Remember, Jackson was the first municipality in the country to elect an all-female town council and that was decades ago!

Compassion isn't an easy word for most folks here to say, but it's a highly valued virtue. It's one of the reasons I still live here...

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[kiahzero]

312. So why should women get to chose?

Your fundamental premise "responsibility for pregnancy begins before the sex act, not after it" is contradictory to the one of the fundamental premises of the pro-choice argument - that responsbility for pregnancy does not begin before the sex act.

You can't have it both ways and not be a hypocrite. Then again, if you're a misandrist, like some on this thread, being a hypocrite doesn't matter.

[The Flaming Red Head]

234. Zero unless he wants to put up at least half for the procedure.

Other than that, absolutely no say at all.

[Beer Snob-50]

236. Yes a man has a say in this matter.

If he is man enough to make this baby to start with, he should be man enough to sit down with the woman and discuss the issue. Than come to an agreeable solution. If he is an abuser, ect. than all bets are off and then he has no say.

In my single days, if I got a woman pregnant, I would want to help her in making this decison.

[Yupster]

301. An agreeable solution on whether a baby is born or not

in my opinion should be whatever the woman says since it's her body.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

259. I didn't read all 260 responses but I did read the OP

and this is something I have thought about and talked about a lot.

I just want to throw this out there for consideration:

Women DO have the biological "advantage" (some of us don't think of it that way, LOL!) of being the carrier of the child. And the way things are set up now, we are seen as somehow inherently having more rights to the child because of that.

But I am an advocate for father's rights. NOT fathers who are abusive, ok? Not in that case. But I have seen too many cases of good, loving fathers who are denied access to their children for whatever reason (excluding abuse or neglect, again) and the courts just uphold it. I've known too many good dads who lost their kids due to nothing more than prejudice for the mother, on the part of society and our court system.

My own father lost my brother and I to stepparent adoption in 1976. It was heartbreaking for us and our dad. But my mother did not care, she wanted all of us to "have the same last name" and she was out to punish our dad for her own personal reasons. She used as a weapon. He ultimately was pressured into signing papers giving us up permanently. Being young and naive, he believed my mother and my stepfather (adoptive father) when they promised him he could still see us and be in contact even after the adoption. SUCKA! He called two days after it was finalized and they hung up on him. He sent cards, gifts, they were all returned.

I NEEDED my dad. I loved him. I was 7 years old and BAFFLED as to why he couldn't be in my life, though both he and I wanted to have a relationship.

That was many years ago. But the dads I still see today going through this--well, it breaks my heart all over again. They often assume the courts will be prejudiced against them and give up almost before the custody hearings have started.

I know I am not addressing abortion directly. I think simply because the woman has to CARRY and give birth to the child, she has more say in whether it is carried to term or not. But after birth, unless the father is abusive, neglectful, or absent, there is no reason to keep that child's father away from them.

And mothers can be abusive and neglectful, too. Mine was. Basically the courts gave us to the wrong parent. But since she was the MOM, they assumed she was the right parent.

[Yupster]

304. What I see all the time

(I'm a stockbroker so I visit families every day) is divorced mothers get remarried and just move away leaving the dads hundreds of miles from his kids.

I live in an oil community where people get rtansferred all the time.

[noiretextatique]

274. it's the woman's decision

as to how involved she wants the man to be.

[LanternWaste]

302. I'm a Neanderthal...

Many (many) years ago, I was living with a young lady (we weren't married, but we had plans...). She got pregnant and to be honest, I was thrilled. I was going to be a Dad! I was going to have and raise a family. For six weeks, I was walking on air. Then one evening she told me that she had miscarried. I admit, I was devastated for quite a while and it took me longer than I thought possible to recover from the depression that resulted.

Years later, when I was involved in another relationship I ran into her. We talked for a little while and she let it slip that she had actually aborted the child ("fetus" for all the purists) behind my back.

Sheesh! It's almost the complete opposite of your story now that I think about it.


My own Neanderthal-style opinion is that if the woman is in a loving and caring marriage, the eventual decision should be made by both parents. Since they're married, they've made vows to share all decisions, all obligations, all joys and all trials together.

Yeah, I'm gonna get flamed, charbroiled and pureed for voicing my opinion, but don't worry... I'm not planning on marrying anyone who feels different about this than I do, so I'm really not fundamentally stepping on anyone's toes.

I've consciously avoided reading any of the replies to you question before answering because I know how gun shy I get sometimes....

[noiretextatique]

308. i appreciate your story, and respect your opinion

and i think yours is a sensible, mature, and rational opinion. thanks for sharing it.
ideally, this should be a decision both partners in a committed relationship make...and i can understand your pain about not being included in that decision.
but of course, not all preganancies result from committed relationships or marriages.

[LanternWaste]

316. You're right, of course...

Of course you're right. Not all pregnancies result from caring and commited relationships. I can't really say I have an much of an opinion one way or another regarding those...

except that two people were thinking much more about personal gratification than life-consequences one evening. :spank:

[noiretextatique]

322. indeed...however

in some cases...it's rape of incest. but i agree with you...there is far too much of the "sport" variety of sex where partners are irresponsible and uncaring about the consequences. i know a woman who has brought seven children into the world, and each one of them has been taken away from her because she is unfit to be a mother. that sickens me.

[LanternWaste]

331. Bear in mind....

Bear in mind, my response is to the original question which asks if the father should have any say in the matter of his wife's (or girlfriend's) abortion or not. In the case of rape (and I consider incest a form of rape), I seriously doubt the father *would* want say in the matter, regardless of whether or not he's indicted for his crime, so I don't think that's a relevant issue in this context.



:hi:

[Yupster]

315. I sympathize, but

you can't make a decision jointly.

If the parents agree to have the kid or not, fine, but

if one says yes and the other says no, the tie has to be broken. You can't have half a son or daughter.

So how should the tie be broken? In my opinion, it has to be the woman's choice.

However, that does not mean the woman should be able to take the next step and obligate the man for her choice, because it was her choice.

[arwalden]

344. Other Than As A "Consult"... ZERO. --- Woman's Decision Trumps The Man's

desires EVERY TIME. --- That's how it goes. Get over it.

Look at it this way... the sperm is a GIFT that the man gives the woman. It's now hers. If she becomes pregnant, it's still HERS. If she chooses to continue or end the pregnancy, it's HER CHOICE. Once the baby is born, it's a gift that she gives to him... fatherhood.

See? The circle of life continues. Part of the time it's his. He gives it to her. She brings forth a child for both of them. His legal responsibilities resume again at the moment of the baby's birth.

-- Allen


Closing thoughts: That's one of the dangers of having sex. Whether you take precautions or not... whether you think she's taking the right precautions or not... even if you think you (or she) is infertile, that's just one of the risks of having heterosexual intercourse.

Men who can't accept these risks shouldn't fuck. Men who cannot accept the fact that they MUST give up control to a woman (for 9 months) shouldn't fuck.

[jackieforthedems]

357. Response

This is just my opinion, so, please, no one be offended. Although I personally am not for abortion, I believe that God gives us all free will to make our own decisions. I am not here to judge others. I was raised in the Catholic religion, but there are some things in their beliefs that I can't enforce in my own life. For the most part, I think they have a nice, basic set of beliefs. I go to church because it is the only one I am familiar with, and I like to worship in a church. Anyway, regarding your questions... I personally think that unless the guy is married to you, that he shouldn't have anything to say. It should be your decision to raise your child your way, especially, if he is a child support payment dodger. He played, so he should pay. The fact that he was an equal and agreeable participant in the playing part should automatically make him an equal partner in the paying part, whether he is agreeable to that or not. If he doesn't want any part in raising the child, then keep him away, but I think he still should pay. If it is mutual that he stays away, then raising the child should be done by you - keep him away if he's just going to abuse you, etc... because he's not worth the trouble. As far as abortion goes, that is between the two of you and God. We know what are sins are, as none of us are sin free. So, therefore, we know what we will have to fess up to with God when our judgement time comes. In my opinion, church and state should be separate. The USA is a melting pot made up of people from other countries, races and religions, and who are any one of us to tell you exactly what you should do? We can only offer our advice. :hug:

[asm128]

380. NONE!!!!!

Until a man can have a child, carry one etc, we should have NO decsision. As a man, I have no right what a woman does with her body. I can give my input and opinion if it is mine, but ultimately it has to be her choice. Men, and other womem for that matter, should not try to dictate what a woman should do with her body.





"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former

-- Albert Einstein

[samplegirl]

393. None especially if the father is Republican

Abort right away!!!!!!!!

[Bogus W Potus]

395. completely uncalled for

abortion is not a game. it's not a race. It's a very serious decision for women and you should not make light of it.

[Bogus W Potus]

394. 0%, BUT PLEASE READ MY RESPONSE

It's not the man's body we're talking about here. I know that would be frustrating for a man who wanted to keep a child when his wife didn't, but that's just the way it has to be if we are to remain a free society. Hopefully the lady would take his wishes into consideration when determining whether or not an abortion is the correct choice.


Humans are not the arbiters of morality with regard to abortions. A higher power is in charge, in my opinion.

Might I also add that I find some of the responses on this thread disturbing. Abortion is a very serious issue and to make light of it is disgusting. This is potential human life we are talking about here, and in the later stages of pregnancy, it is very close to being a human life, and some would argue that at the later stages it is in fact a human life.

While I am fully pro-choice, I wish that people on here would not make light of this very serious issue and stop cracking jokes about fetuses, etc. It really is disgusting and it has no place in a thread as serious as this one.

There's an example above. Someone posted above me that if the father is a Republican you should abort immediately. People could take this base argument and contort it and stretch it out to other groups of people. If a gay gene is ever found then you can be sure Republicans will be in a tizzy, caught between their desire to eliminate homosexuality and their anti-choice beliefs. We don't want it to come to that.

While the reason for an abortion should be irrelevant, we should really stop making light of this issue as I said above and just keep this issue as private as can be.

If you want to have an abortion that's up to you. I just really can't stand people advocating abortions for certain segments of our society like Republicans, because that takes us down a very dangerous path, a EUGENIC path.

/rant off.

Thanks for listening.

[Aftershock]

396. Here's my take on the issue.

I really hope I don't ruffle any feathers, but here goes.

I think since it takes two people to make a child, then the male should have some say-so on what the couple should do, you know? I mean, after all, the kid is 1/2 his genes, right?

But on the other hand, the baby is growing and living from inside the mother. She gets the final say-so on whether or not she has the child, which makes sense.

But in the end, I would recommend that both people should sit down and go through their options and try to support one another on whichever decision they choose.

You know, this is a really hard question to answer and I'm sorry if I didn't offer a clear choice for the issue.

[Sirveri]

398. My thoughts.

If he wants the child, and she wants a abortion, the discussion is ended, the fetus is aborted.

If neither want the child, the fetus is aborted.

If both want the child, they have a baby.

If She wants the child, and the male does NOT want the child, then the male should be able to sever any and all responsibility for the child. Just like the mother can choose to do before birth.

But according to some that would be mean.

So how about this alternative. The male does not want the child, therefore he is granted full control of the baby and is allowed to put it up for adoption instead. Any problems with this? The child goes to a loving home, the father no longer retains responsibility, and the mother gets her wish, a pregnancy which is allowed to go to term. If she wants to continue to care for that baby she can feel free to adopt it. But of course, then that would just be another version of the first solution I offered.

But at least then everyone would have a choice. And it would make people who normally couldn't have children that much happier.

[Pachamama]

400. Men should be consulted & have the ability to voice their opinion, but it

should always remain the final decision to the woman....

Why? Because a woman has to be pregnant for 9 months, not a man...

I had something in my last pregnancy called "Hyperemises" (sp?) it is rare, happens in about .5% of pregnancies and its basically "Morning Sickness" out of control....that might not sound so bad, but take into account that it means throwing up nearly every 10-15 minutes for nearly 5 1/2 months where you can't even keep Water down, your body is shaking, your dehydrated and electolytes out of wack and unless you have an IV hydrating you with Home nursing care and lots of "meds" that treat the throwing up, you literally can't stop. I received something called "Anzemet" intravenously every 4 hours. It is a drug that they give to cancer patients going through chemo therapy to help with the nauseau....It costs about $50+ a dose ($300 a day) or more and it left me at 6+ months of pregnancy at 98 lbs (when I normally pre-pregnancy weigh 120 lbs) and weak. I was hospitalized 5 times, had an intravenous pick IV line (to feed and hydrate me inserted up through my veins in my arm into my chest) and would lay in bed shaking and weak. In third world countries or without the medical care I received, women DIE. DIE....unless they have medication or an abortion. I was lucky...I have fantastic healthcare coverage that covered everything from the full cost of medication to the home nursing care. I don't have to work and I had help at home. But what if I had been a single mom with a child here in America, working a minimum wage job and had no family support, no health insurance and a job where if I don't show, I don't have "short-term and long-term disability" just a pink slip if I don't show. It was by far the most awful, grueling and horrible time physically and mentally in my life. I will never, ever ever go through that again. George W. Bush and the rest of the right wingnuts want to take away Women's right to choose their reproductive options, including abortion - In their world, in the scenario of a single mom with no healthcare, would I be forced to keeping a pregnancy like that where I would possibly die of dehydration or heart attack due to electolyte imbalance and leave my existing child an orphan? I survived that ordeal, but only because of money and health insurance. Still, I will never, ever go through that again. No man can make a choice for a woman and force her to go through a pregnancy...ultimately, it should and can only be her choice. When men can get pregnant and suffer hyperemesis, then they can make the decisions.

[Baltimoreboy]

408. Fine, if you can only "consult" men, you can only "request" money

[ibegurpard]

402. I think that your story shows you made the best choice you could.

And that is what every person should do, depending upon their situation. It's none of my business unless, being a man, the child is mine and even then ultimately it's the woman who has to carry the child and so she has the final say. If I was the father of a child and the woman wanted to abort it and I didn't want her to and she did it anyway then that would probably end the relationship. However, legally, I feel strongly that the final say is hers.

[0007]

406. Absolutely nada!

[sushi]

411. It's the woman who decides

If she asks for the father's opinion then he can speak. Otherwise he should just shut up.

[Moderator]

412. Locking......

It appears that this argument will never
come to a conclusion. The parties on
each side of this issue are not ready
to agree on this issue. Since we can
only continue to argue and never come
to an agreement on this controversial
issue, it has been decided to put
this one to rest.


Thank you.


DU Moderator