Should men have any say in abortion at all?

[Clete]

My point is that when men can get pregnant and spend nine months growing a baby in their bodies, then they can have a say in laws governing these matters. I really think it's time for women to write to their representatives stating that the men really need to butt out on women's reproductive medical rights.

Even in the repressive Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church meddled in everyone's private affairs, men stayed far away from women's decisions about their reproduction. These matters were handled by mid-wives and female relatives without any interference from the men, not even the Pope.

With this historic overturning of Roe vs. Wade, and yes, that is what it is. This is what they are working on. The partial birth abortion debate is only the first step. It's time to go to battle again ladies and this time we need to get legislation passed that keeps men from making decisions on matters that only concern women.

[GOPisEvil]

1. Generally, no.

Far be it from me (a man) to tell any woman what her options regarding childbirth should be. The only time my opinion should matter to any woman is if she pregnant with MY child. Other than that, I can have whatever views I want on the subject of abortion, but I shouldn't be forcing them on anyone.

[Clete]

4. Excuse me but even if it were your child and she

didn't want to carry it nine months, would you make her? Wouldn't it be better to have a child with a willing woman?

[GOPisEvil]

21. Would I make her? No. Not at all.

But, I would think she'd owe me the courtesy of listening to my opinion in that case.

In all other cases, my opinion is meaningless.

[Yupster]

68. Your opinion is meaningless

Only your wallet has value.

[GOPisEvil]

88. To whom?

I must be missing something in your argument. It's been a long day, please enlighten me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Women get to choose whether a man pays

If a woman has an abortion, the man is not on the hook for money. If she has the child and raises him/her, it can obligate a man for up to 18 or more years of expenses, yet he has no say, even if he took precaution and she promised she would have an abortion.

Not exactly fair.

[GOPisEvil]

92. Yeah, but as a man I know the risks going in.

One should take precaution to minimize the risks involved, and be prepared to deal with the results of our actions.

I've had to participate in a "abortion or not" argument. My answer was, "Whatever your choice, I am behind you 100%."

If you're not ready to deal with the consequences, you shouldn't be having sex.

[Yupster]

96. But why wouldn't that same logic apply to women then?

If you're not prepared to be a mother, you shouldn't be having sex.

[Nobody]

281. In a perfect world there would be no rapists

And in the case of rape, the woman never gets a choice. I can think of few worse tortures than being forced to bear a child conceived by rape.

Ideally, everyone would be responsible. No one would lie about birth control, no birth control would fail, no relationships turn sour, no one has sex without both partners wanting to.

But the world is far from ideal.

Men rape women.

Birth control is less than 100% effective.

Women lie to men about using birth control.

Men ditch women when the woman tells him she's pregnant.

Women intentionally get pregnant to get the man to marry her. (by the way, just ask him!)

Society looks down on single mothers. (Still!)

Women who have sex and are not married are still branded as sluts.

In many states, it's still not a crime for a man to rape his wife. My state is one of them.

There are also many decent, loving, kind, generous, considerate human beings, both men and women. But there are so many assholes who want to make decisions involving your body, your checkbook, your life, your family, your future that aren't in your best interest. That's what laws are to protect the rest of us from.

Unfortunately sometimes the laws conflict.

Ideally, a many should be talked to, preferably before the couple has sex, but even so, it is the woman who has to bear the health risks along with the kid. Therefore, though the man might be a legislator in the sexual congress, the woman is the president and gets veto power.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. If abortion is legal

Why shouldn't a man be expected to pay for just that? Why should he have to pay for a woman's decision to have the child?

[GOPisEvil]

224. Because he bears 50% responsibility for the creation of a life.

You can't pick and choose which result you're willing to pay for. If the woman decides to go through with her pregnancy, then she has costs to bear, and the man has costs to bear. Likewise if she decides to terminate the pregnancy. They are in it together. You seem to think that a woman who chooses to go through with her pregnancy has ZERO costs and the man bears them all. Where the hell did you get that idea?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

232. Not under current laws he doesn't.

You can't pick and choose which result you're willing to pay for. If the woman decides to go through with her pregnancy, then she has costs to bear, and the man has costs to bear. Likewise if she decides to terminate the pregnancy. They are in it together. You seem to think that a woman who chooses to go through with her pregnancy has ZERO costs and the man bears them all. Where the hell did you get that idea?

So if THE WOMAN chooses to have the baby, he has to pay, but if THE WOMAN chooses to have an abortion they are in it TOGETHER?

Not even bloody close. Under the current laws, a woman has the sole choice as to whether a man will become finacially obligated to the baby. If she decides to have it, he is obligated, if she decides not to he, is not. HE has NO choice.

I am pro-choice for both sexes, because I am not sexist.

So, under a non-sexist system, if a woman wants to have the baby, but the man doesn't, then he is not financially obligated. In other words his ONLY choice is to whether or not he recognises the child as his and thus takes resposnibility for it. He can't force her to have the baby, and she can't force him to pay for it if she does.

[GOPisEvil]

236. No, no...maybe I phrased that badly.

I meant that, regardless of the decision of the woman, both the man and woman are equally financially responsible. My point is this: Why do you assume the woman has ZERO financial responsiblities if she has the child? The man pays for EVERYTHING?!

Not even bloody close. Under the current laws, a woman has the sole choice as to whether a man will become finacially obligated to the baby. If she decides to have it, he is obligated, if she decides not to he, is not. HE has NO choice.

Once again, let me repeat myself. If you are not willing to accept ALL the responsibilities of potential parenthood, you should not be having sex.

So, under your system, I can say to a woman I impregnate, "Sorry hon, you're having this child without my blessing, you're on you own."??? Wow...I thought we were supposed to take responsibility for our actions...maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how allowing men to walk away from their financial responsibilites is a good thing.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

306. Because even after birth the woman has a choice:

She can adopt the baby out, and thereby renounce her financial obligations to it. The man on the other hand can not force adoption any more than he can force abortion, and thus is obligated to the child if the woman says so.

Like I said, woman get unlimitied choices to renounce their obligations to the baby, but the man gets NONE.

If you are not willing to accept ALL the responsibilities of potential parenthood, you should not be having sex.

The same arguement can be made against abortion: If women are not willing to accept ALL the responsibilities of potential parenthood, including risks to health and welfare, then they should not be having sex.

I personally don't agree with this statement for any person, male or female, and thus I am pro-choice - for both sexes.

So, under your system, I can say to a woman I impregnate, "Sorry hon, you're having this child without my blessing, you're on you own."??? Wow...I thought we were supposed to take responsibility for our actions...maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how allowing men to walk away from their financial responsibilites is a good thing.

Yet the woman can say "Sorry hon, I am terminating this baby and you have no say in the matter". I thought we were supposed to take responsibility for our actions, including giving birth to the child if you become pregnant?

Can you see that your arguments work both ways?

Take for example the idea of walking away from financial responsibilities. Women can and do walk away from their financial responsibilities by putting the child up for adoption. Happens every day. Yet according to some, men should not have the choice to have the baby aborted, adopted or to renounce their obligations.

Why should women have full choice, and men have none? Hell, I am not even asking for full equality here. I am saying that men should be able to renounce the child BEFORE it is born, but should be obligated if they do not do so while the woman still has the choice to abort.

I am NOT arguing on the other hand for men to be able to refuse after birth, even though I believe women should still be able to do so by putting the child up for adoption.

[bearfartinthewoods]

334. i can agree with you if you apply this to both sexes

you wrote:
"Once again, let me repeat myself. If you are not willing to accept ALL the responsibilities of potential parenthood, you should not be having sex."

if a woman has sex she should accept, in your words and with your emphasis "ALL the responsibilities".

that includes paying ALL the costs of a child she chooses to keep.

i think i have been on this board long enough that my feminist attitude is obvious. but there is something drasticly unfair in the current situation. it is sexist in that it gives total control of the man's future to the woman. he may be a complelled to father, at least financially, even if he does not wish to.

this is fundamentally unfair. if a man cannot compell a woman to bear his children, (and we all agree that that's a basic tenant) than i man should not be compelled to support a child which is born against his will.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

144. The rights of the child (once born) and the rights of the woman carrying

the fetus are distinct. Once a fetus turns into a child, its rights are distinct from the mother which is why men can petition the courts for custody if they can prove themselves to be a more fit parent.

A common logical fallacy on abortion threads is to confuse these two issues.

[Muddleoftheroad]

201. Nevertheless

If a woman says she wants to go ahead and have a child and raise it, she is making a lifetime financial commitment for the man who has no say in the matter. If abortion is truly no big deal, isn't that unfair to the man?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

205. Who ever said justice is fair?

[Muddleoftheroad]

210. So you admit this is unjust and unfair?

Next step is making it illegal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

213. No it is just and you perceive it to be unfair

again...repetition works in some cases, if the law is GOING to err ot should err in favor of the party assuming the greatest physical risk...that is the woman.

BTW, I am a bit disappointed since you don't appreciate others putting words in your mouth and I suspect you were 100 percent clear that I did NOT state it was unjust AND unfair...cheap shot.

[Muddleoftheroad]

219. You said, "Who ever said justice is fair?"

Sure looks like what I commented on, if not I am sorry.

Ultimately, it is clear that, along with fighting for custody, this is another area that is grossly unfair to men and will need to be litigated.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

223. It is clear you can;t distinguish between a child's rights and a woman's

rights concerning an egg which is not yet a child. Since you can't make that distinction, it's really a waste of time to have this debate.

There are far more women and children living in poverty as a result of the actions of men than the reverse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

248. False distinction

Decisions based on one, impact the other. If a woman has total control over the birth, then she is totally responsible for that happening. That means the man is not.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

259. YOur analogy is false since the man had total control over his sperm

He assumed that risk when he left it there. So did she but that is why she gets the choice of carrying it to term or not.

Sorry you don't like it but I for one would push for castration for deadbeat dads the day you push for forced pregnancy or abdication of your rights concerning the child just to be vengeful.

Frankly, I think you do quite a good job of framing men as the victim but it does NOT alter the fact that child support and a woman's choice are NO MORE RELATED than are child support and visitation rights.

The issues are distinct and again, you only MUDDLE them for convenience.

Would you favor castration for deadbeat dads? Then why favor corporal punishment for women who don't want to carry full term ( and pregnancy against a woman's will can be considered nothing short of corporal punishment)

Oh and BTW since the law acknowledges my distinction a bit more than yours...it isn't a false distinction...again for the biology neophyte...one involves a fetus dependent upon its host to survive..the other involves a LIVE BORN PERSON.

If you still aren't getting it then perhaps I should go piss in the wind where I can feel more effective.

Sorry..logic is your enemy in this debate as is science.

[Muddleoftheroad]

285. Castrate deadbeat dads all you wish

As long as they can opt out of the process prior to birth.

Again, all you are saying is that the man only gets the choice not to have sex. The woman gets choices all along the way. That, as we like to say, is not a balanced argument.

Child support is not necessary after a child is born. The mother is choosing to raise that child. There are many people out there who wish to adopt. If she is morally opposed to abortion, she has that legal option.

Actually, I am entirely OK if women go ahead with an abortion on their own. (In a marriage, it is the woman's choice and if she ignores the wishes of the man, it's his choice to divorce her on the spot.) The problem comes in really when they don't have an abortion. If they do NOT go ahead with this entirely legal procedure, they are obligating a man toward a lifetime of financial commitment. That should not be their choice.

Logic is your enemy in this. It is a classic political ploy. You want your cake and expect to eat it, too.

[Booberdawg]

288. Actually, logic is YOUR enemy in this, and so is ....

the law.

You still seem to be confusing the distinct separate issues concerning the rights of the woman and the rights of the child.

The law is not on your side in this. It is the law that prevents YOU from having your cake and eating it too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

291. Laws can be changed

And will be in this case.

Alas they are not separate issues. If a woman makes choice A To have or not have an abortion, she either obligates or does not obligate a man to financial commitment B.

I have no problem with choice A. I have a problem with her obligating his commitment.

She gets a choice, so should he. If the net result of this is more abortions because men don't want to pay, then perhaps fewer unwanted children will enter this world.

[Booberdawg]

293. LOL! Okay, you go change the law then.

And use the same logic you are using here. Good luck! :hi:

[chefgirl]

305. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree....

It is not only the woman obligating the man to financial commitment......THAT is a chance HE takes (as does the woman) when they decide to have sex.

You said.." She gets a choice, so should he " He does get to choose. He chooses whether or not to have sex with her right from the start. Does she get to choose who carries the child?? Maybe if she did your argument might have some credence. We all have our choices and obligations, no matter how different.

I have to agree with GOPisEvil on this one. If people aren't willing or able to deal with the consequences, then they have no business having sex.
This, by the way, is exactly the position I've taken with my 14yr old son when discussing why some adults think its wrong for teenagers to be having sex. Sadly, however, there are far too many adults who continue to behave like teenagers where sex and its attendant responsibilities are concerned.

Just my humble opinion.

-chef-

[Devils Advocate NZ]

310. Huh?

Does she get to choose who carries the child??

Yes. If she does not wish to carry it she can have it aborted.

The next question is: Does she get to renounce her obligations to a child once it is born?

Once again the answer is yes, she can put the child up for adoption, and thereby renounce her financial obligations to the child.

So, can I take it from your post that you are anti-choice? That you believe a woman should be obligated to carry the child to full term, after all, isn't that one of the consequences of becoming pregnant?

Or are you hypocritical on this issue and believe that only MEN should have to face the consequences of their actions?

[chefgirl]

318. First of all........

I am, by NO means, anti-choice.

Secondly, I was responding specifically to the argument that a previous poster made repeatedly about 'the woman' forcing the man into a financial commitment. If you really read my reply you'll see that what I said was that it was a CHANCE he took ( AS DID THE WOMAN )when they decided to have sex. -CHANCE-

I believe I also said we EACH have our choices and obligations. By that I mean his choices are vastly different from hers when a pregnancy occurs, but the ONE choice they both have right from the start is whether or not to have sex and take the chance.

" Does she get to choose who carries the baby?"
I'm relatively sure you're adult enough to realize that I was referring (again) to the differences in our respective choices. Ok, sure, I'll grant you I should probably have made myself clearer and specified that I was speaking of a bioligical choice here, ya know, just in case someone wanted to come along and blow some smoke about her having the choice NOT to carry at all. My bad. However, what if the man is adamantly opposed to abortion?? Does she get to choose which one of them carries this child he wants so badly?? NO.

Again, we EACH have our respective choices to make, and like it or not, they ARE very different. If a man or woman isnt ready to make the decisions that are uniquely theirs to make, and accept the choices of the other, that are not theirs to make, they have no business having sex.

Lastly, I am not at all hypocritical in my position. Speaking as a single mother, who made the choice (along with my ex) to take just as much financial responsibility for the care and raising of my child as he does, I do NOT think that only men should have to face the consequences of their actions. Neither do I think men have the right to abdicate those responsibilities once they've made the SAME choice the woman did....to have sex and take the CHANCE that a pregnancy could occur.

-chef-

[Muddleoftheroad]

323. All pregnancies can be ended

It's perfecly legal to do so and, according to pro-chocie folks, a minor procedure.

Obligating a man to be a parent either in bankbook only or in totality WITHOUT his choice in the matter is wrong.

Kudos to you for taking care of the child, but did the man have any choice in the matter?

[chefgirl]

325. Since you asked....

The man had just as much choice in the matter as I did. We consciously made the decision to have a child and decided TOGETHER on the terms our individual responsibilities to him when we decided to divorce. Our son is just as much his responsibility as he is mine, and vice versa.

As far as a man being a parent, it is NEVER without his choice. If he takes the chance by having sex with a woman, THAT is his choice, just as it is hers.
The men in this thread seem to be forgetting that the woman didnt just 'get' pregnant without his participation. If men dont feel they should be obligated to be parents, then there is only ONE way to ensure that it doesn't happen, otherwise.....you roll the dice and you take what you get, just like the woman.

-chef-

[Muddleoftheroad]

331. Mixed answer

First off, I congratulate you on your own choices. Not many people do things as well as you seem to be doing.

However, a women gets repeated chances to opt out of the process, the man gets none. That is unbalanced. The woman can avoid sex and opt out. She can abort and opt out. She can put the child up for adoption and opt out. The man only gets one chance, can take all the precautions in the world and still be stuck because he does not get the same CHOICE.

Freedom of choice after all.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

311. Does the mother have to pay child support when she adopts the baby out?

Or is adoption the means by which a woman can renounce her financial obligations to the now born child?

In other words, under law, the mother can renounce her obligation to the child, and the child's rights are not taken into account. So why should it be any different for men?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

329. OK let me explain this ONE MORE TIME! FOr those that value repetition

Again, all you are saying is that the man only gets the choice not to have sex. The woman gets choices all along the way. That, as we like to say, is not a balanced argument.

Gee, that's interesting considering there are condoms, vasectomies, a few questions a MAN can ASK before he gets his rocks off and the like. Nowhere did I say a man had no choice but sex or NO sex...perhaps the problem is your linear thinking in the matter or the fact that you will cling to this notion of the man as VICTIM here even though there is little evidence to SUPPORT that faulty reasoning. BTW, what is a "balanced" argument? Maybe it is simply that your arguments are based on the false premise that the rights of a woman to her body and the RIGHTS of a child ONCE BORN are one in the smae...they aren't...if a woman has a child and them commits a crime...she goes to jail and the child doesn't...there's your first clue.

Child support is not necessary after a child is born. The mother is choosing to raise that child. There are many people out there who wish to adopt. If she is morally opposed to abortion, she has that legal option.

So, again let's examine your logic in the matter. You ONLY CARE about the consequences if YOU can CONTROL them. If you are denied control then the consequences should be as vindictive as possible even though you HAD control of when and IF to deposit your sperm.

Simple proof that this REALLY isn't about men having a choice only MEN GETTING to preserve their historic role as DOMINATOR.


If they do NOT go ahead with this entirely legal procedure, they are obligating a man toward a lifetime of financial commitment. That should not be their choice.

So where is the man's responsibility in all of this? WHy should the child have it's rights bargained away before the time of its birth?


Again, you are saying the state should bargain away the rights of future children for the convenience of the male so that men can continue to MINDLESSLY deposit their sperm free of consequences.

I frankly see no issue of equality with my argument since nature made this argument unbalanced.

Logic is your enemy in this. It is a classic political ploy. You want your cake and expect to eat it, too.

Uh, given all the children raised around the world with no father in site, as we say in legal cirlces "you're grabbing"

[Devils Advocate NZ]

308. Your distinction is false, or did you forget about adoption?

Women can abdicate their responsibilites to a child after it is born simply by putting the child up for adoption.

Thus in your books a woman has three choices:

1) have sex
2) abort the baby or carry it to full term
3) accept responsibility for the child, or adopt it out.

While men only have one choice:

1) have sex

I believe that men should be given the same choice in regards to responsibiltiy that women have - they should be able to renounce their obligations to the child before it is born, leaving the woman with two choices: give birth or abort, and accept responsibility or adopt the child out.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

330. Take it up with God then

Oh and in the typical male victim manner we forgot about choices such as condoms, spermicides and vasectomies.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

351. Why would I want to take anything up with a mythical deity?

Oh and in the typical male victim manner we forgot about choices such as condoms, spermicides and vasectomies.

Still on the sex part huh? Well then let's talk about the pill, diaphrams and tube tying...

So can we get back to the issue of what rights people have once an unwanted prgnancy occurs? Or will you keep dodging the issue in order to avoid being forced to admit that you are sexist?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

355. No I am NOT dodging the issue and am NOT a sexist..a SEXIST would

think THEY should have a say in what another person does with their body. A SEXIST would deliberately COLLAPSE the issues of habeas corpus and CHILD support as though one has ANYTHING to do with the other. A SEXIST would charge that the mother should sign away the child's rights.

What YOU are complaining of is an act of GOD or NATURE depending on one's perspective.

Child support has as MUCH to do with ABORTION and men having a say in abortion as it does with VISITATION RIGHTS (I am assuming you realize that visitation rights and child support are also separate and distinct issues, which is why many men get to see their children even if their checks never make it there)

I have DODGED no issues.

Your complaint is that the woman, if she chooses to have the baby can cause a man a financial obligation. Too bad. The man knew that too...the assumption of risk already took place. Nothing sexist about it...the law errs in child support matters on the side of the child not EITHER parent. In matters concerning the health and livelihood of the mother (when it somces to abortion) the law should err on the side of the person assuming the greatest physical risk. Until you and all the men FALSELY muddling the issues can make a man conceive and carry, that TOO continues to be the woman.

The DELIBERATE COLLAPSE of child support and having a say in whether a woman carries a conception full term is a SEXIST PLOY to make MEN APPEAR to be the victims when historically THEY ARE NOT.

[Cheswick2.0]

354. here's an idea

keep your penis to yourself. It is your body, control it.

[Occulus]

50. I'd consider adoption

personally. NOT wanting a child, for me, right now, is a strictly financial decision.

I'm male, BTW.

[Deja Q]

185. RIGHT ON!!!!!!!

That is the ONLY civilized response.

Also consider, grown adult women make decisions. Babies can't. The adult woman can do more for this society than the baby.

And I'd rather see American society improve before I have anything to do with raising a child, let alone making one. This is one of my life's new goals. To change the world to make America a more civilized place. May as well improve on this fascist greed pit before I snuff it.

[judge_smales]

2. Well,

either the father is a parent or he is not. Should he be barred from making decisions about the childs education or religious upbringing too? After all, he never carried the baby so how could he decide, right?

[Clete]

8. Sure he could because the child is no longer in her womb.

That is the difference. This is why the institution of marriage came about so a man could have a say in raising his children, who are already born. Back in Roman times, when a child was born, it was presented to the alleged father and if he picked it up and acknowledged it was his, then and only then did he have any say in how it was reared.

[judge_smales]

12. But what

does that have to do w/ today? Are you saying that it's perfectly OK for me to throw my kids mother out into the street because it was done in Roman times?

[Clete]

17. You miss the point.

I used the Roman thing to illustrate it. The woman didn't get thrown out in the street because most likely she was a slave anyway, or would have been returned to her parents if she wasn't. The baby was often left to die. Barbaric yes, but the point I was making was that never in history did men have a sayso about a woman's pregnancy.

[Tansy_Gold]

34. Decisions

Just FYI ---

My son-in-law is barred from making any decisions in his son's upbringing regarding school choice and religion. Though he pays child support and has limited visitation rights, his ex-wife has sole custody and can do what she wants.

He recently went to court to try to establish at least a consultation provision -- that he be consulted and his opinion noted should she decide to change any of the boy's basic routine regarding school, church, health care, etc. -- and that request was turned down on the basis that the boy lives with his mother in a state distant from his father, and that her parents are the only grandparents with regular contact (paternal grandparents are also in a distant state and are divorced from each other).

the only way the father will have any say in these issues if the mother relinquishes custody, dies, or is incapacitated. in the event of the latter two circumstances, even though he has legal precedence over the maternal grandparents, he would probably still have to fight them in court.

[Jen72]

140. Many men desert their child and never take any part in

any decisions. Men that can not commit, are juvenile, irresponsible and do not care, for the child that needs him. If a woman is pregnant by that kind of man, she has a choice either, realise that this maybe her one chance to be a mother, therefore she will take the risk of being abandoned, poor and labelled as a whore, welfare mom. Or work so hard she never sees her child.
Or she if badly wants a nice, happy family home, she realises it will not happen, she does not want to be pregnant by a immature man, she is afraid of being alone with a child, so she has an abortion.(With either option she is condemned by religious groups, talk show hosts,senetors,judges in The Supreme Court and many others.)

If someone gets pregnant with a man who is loving,interested and excited to a Dad, making decisions about the child will be natural
process. A father can see a scan, fell the baby kick, watch it be born, console if something goes wrong - the is a father and true partner.

It is 2003, Women are supposed be liberated, free to choose, so why are people making life tougher for women?

[junker]

3. No. Not until they can either

get knocked up, or unknock someone....

[Devil Dog Dem]

5. Does that apply to child support?

Under your view, if a woman is pregnant with a man's child and he doesn't want kids but she refuses to get an abortion or give it up for adoption, is he still on the hook for child support? If so: why?

[Clete]

15. My personal experience has been that

if a woman could have gotten an abortion when she wanted without being made to feel guilty by church and family, this wouldn't have been a problem. No child, no support. Many of my single mother friends never got a dime from the birth father nor asked for it. Usually, child support issues are between formerly married or living together couples. But there should be laws crafted about this too.

[Devil Dog Dem]

26. Sorry but your answer isn't clear

I'm not talking about your friends who elected not to seek child support.

In addition, the reason that child support issues are "usually" between formerly married or co-habitating couples is irrelevant (that is because most children are born into such situations, thus these issues would usually involve one of those scenarios).

You say laws should be crafted about this too, but you don't say which way you would have them go.

So, I ask: in your view, since the decision belongs only to the woman, should a birth father be required to give financial support for a child he did not want to have if the woman requests such support? If so, why?

[Clete]

38. This post was about reproductive rights not child support.

However, you do bring up the need to clarify everyone's responsibility in this and I do mean responsibility not interference. Read post #13. This could be one solution among many. My post really was about that I don't think men should legislate women's reproduction. If laws are needed then it should be voted on by women only.

[Frodo]

63. You asked if they should have a choice.

Presume a completely consentual act between two adults (not married).

Once it's over, she is the only on who has a "choice". If both want a child or both don't? No problem.

If he wants the child and she doesn't? It's gone (she WAS the one that would have to deal with it - my wife's had three kids, and I know I didn't have the tough job).

But if she wants a child and he doesn't? Tough - he needs to be "responsible for his own actions" and will be paying for the child for the next 20 years or so (and we all know kids aren't cheap). That's why the question is relevant. Presumably both individuals are "responsible" for what happened (and let's not get into who's "responsible" for contraception), but she can bind him and he can't bind her.

We all know the solution: forget abortion and forget "choice" in these cases and don't get women pregnant when one or both of you don't want a child! < /soapbox> But the chance of that happening???

[LeahMira]

125. Where is it written...

... that life has to be fair?

But if she wants a child and he doesn't? Tough - he needs to be "responsible for his own actions" and will be paying for the child for the next 20 years or so (and we all know kids aren't cheap).

Yep, and over the next 20 years or so a lot of people will call her easy or a slut, but the man will not be so labeled.

It's never even or fair.

[Frodo]

164. Oh. THAT's fair.

Can I offer you $250,000 to have someone call you a slut?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

150. Another male that confuses an actually born child's rights with the rights

of a woman carrying a fetus. Logical fallacy...one concerns a BORN child, the other concerns a woman with an egg, zygot or fetus depending on the progression of the pregnancy.

The two are separate and distinct.

[Frodo]

167. No they are not.

When the decision is made (by either party) it's just an egg. If that has no value, then the man should logically be able to choose not to claim it.

Either that, or you are claiming that men do have a choice, but it is limited to whether or not to have sex. Which sounds suspiciously like the anti-choice position for women. The woman has rights, the child (IF the woman wants it) has rights, dad's rights ended when the erection did. Hypocrisy? Or just inconsistent?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

170. NO the male's obligation is not to an egg but to a child once it is born

which is distinct from his ability to interfere with a woman's choice to bear a child.

There is nothing inconsistent. The man has NO assumed rights to the woman's body erection or no erection. He DOES have a responsibility to a child. That is why he can petition for custody of the child if he so chooses but cannot petition for custody of the adult female.

Nothing hypocritical about it, and nothing inconsistent about it.
One is an egg, zygot or fetus that cannot survive outside the womb..the other is a child that has no choice but to survive outside the womb regardless of the male's sense of responsibility.

See

[Frodo]

173. So whether the man has any responsibility or not...

... is entirely the choice of the woman?

If she chooses to have no responsibility, she's off the hook (regarless of whatever religious beliefs he may have)? If she chooses to make him responsible, he's stuck?

Whether or not the "egg" is a "child" is the woman's choice.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

178. Sorry but your question makes no sense and child support is a matter

decided by the courts, not the woman. In fact, in some custody cases, the court appoints a separate representative for the child simply because the child's interests may vary from the interests of either parent.

I am not clear of what you mean when you say "if she chooses to have no responsibility" since courts can and DO order women to pay child support as well.

No..whether or not the "egg" is a child is a matter of science.The earth does not CHOOSE to rotate on its axis.

If you can't distinguish science from that which is not scientific, perhaps therein lies the problem.

One equation involves two people and an egg which is dependent on ONE of them to survive ..the other involves three people, one of which is dependent on BOTH of them, depending on the circumstances and the deference of the courts.

[Frodo]

186. Oh boy.

"If she chooses to have no responsibility" refers to the sex act. They are both responsible for what they did. She can choose to bear no such responsibility for that action, he can not. In fact, I've had times in my life when I thought the pro-choice position was really at the urging of men who wanted to get out of reponsibility for their actions.

And whether the egg BECOMES a child is entirely a mater of the woman's choice. That was the original question, remember? If she chooses for it not to be a child it isn't. He has no such choice.


Understand that my real position is that BOTH of them should bear responsibility. If you don't want to pay for a child you don't go sleeping around with people you don't intend to have a child with. But how well does that sell? Like many here I am personally firmly against abortion (just not necessarily from a political policy standpoint). Both people DO have a choice - before they get in bed.

Regardless, the point still stands. From a legal standpoint, the man's "choice" ends when he get's into bed. The woman has six months of "flexibility" on both her responsibility and his. And remember the woman's prerogative? :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

192. I think you have it exactly backwards

"If she chooses to have no responsibility" refers to the sex act. They are both responsible for what they did. She can choose to bear no such responsibility for that action, he can not

I am operating on memory of what I have read in health policy papers and in helping my ex edit her dissertation (she is an obgyn who also has a masters' degree in public health)

More often than not the SOLE responsibility for birth control lies with the woman due to the male's refusal to wear condoms or get a vasectomy. In fact, although the risk of aids is FAR greater to the receiver of fluids than to the giver, the choice was made in drafting public health materials to present the risk as EQUALLY great to both parties simply because it was clear if the risk was presented as being SOLELY greater to the receiver MEN WOULD NOT WEAR CONDOMS.

You are implying that a woman who gets pregnant has not responsibility and nothing cold be farther from the truth. Whether she chooses to carry the pregnancy full term or terminate it involves great responsibility and both can carry a medical risk. Neither is true for the male, biologically.

And whether the egg BECOMES a child is entirely a mater of the woman's choice. That was the original question, remember? If she chooses for it not to be a child it isn't. He has no such choice.

Since 4 out of 10 pregnancies spontaneously result in abortion, it isn't solely a woman's choice. Ever hear of a thing called miscarriage? Again, a medical phenomena which is NOT without risk of toxicity to the life of the woman. Beyond that, she CHOOSES whether to keep the egg which then becomes a fetus again carrying a risk every step of the way..something a man DOES NOT have to deal with.

Understand that my real position is that BOTH of them should bear responsibility. If you don't want to pay for a child you don't go sleeping around with people you don't intend to have a child with. But how well does that sell? Like many here I am personally firmly against abortion (just not necessarily from a political policy standpoint). Both people DO have a choice - before they get in bed.

My position is that it is fine with me if that is how you conduct your affairs. What you do with your life is your business. Imposing it on others and denying a woman her right to habeaus corpus is not on the bargaining block.

[Yupster]

71. I'd like to see a man's right to choose

Upon learning he has made someone pregnant, he would have a specific amount of time (1 month?) to either agree to father the child or not.

If not, he would have no responsibilities for child support, and the woman would be so informed.

The decision of whether to have the baby or not would still be entirely the woman's, but she would know ahead of time whether the father was willing to help or not.

Just as she had a right to choose whether to be a mother or not, the man would have the right to choose whether to be a father or not.

This would apply in un-married situations only of course.

[mitchum]

100. I completely agree with you , Yupster

I have proposed the same idea forever. It is the only fair option.

[spooky3]

169. These aren't parallel decisions, though.

Leaving aside the issue of the burden and risks of pregnancy itself...

Under your system, the woman faces a much tougher dilemma if the man refuses to accept responsibility for paying for the child, since SOMEONE has to pay for it if it is borne. She has to decide whether to abort the fetus, with all of the psychological burdens it imposes, or pay for the child's expenses until adulthood, and take all responsibility for raising it, even though the man was equally responsible for creating it. The man merely chooses between helping to pay/helping to raise it or not (which many of them do today, unless the woman takes them to court). I don't see the fairness in this at all.

Men give up the right to avoid obligations when they have sex, particularly unprotected sex. If they don't want this risk, they should not have sex, or perhaps they should ask a lawyer to draw up some type of contract for them to get the woman to sign before having sex.

Going back to the original post, I don't see what all the fussing is about re: abortion rights from some men. For a very long time, men proven to be fathers have had the legal responsibility for their children. Abortion provides an opportunity for some to be "relieved" of these responsibilities. It does not impose any additional child care responsibilities, financial or otherwise, on men. So it makes Clete's argument more compelling for me.

Outside of the legal concerns, I would like to think most men and women in relationships would make this decision together with concern for each other's feelings. as well as out of concern for the prospective child.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

147. Because the rights of a CHILD and a woman carrying a fetus are not one

in the same.

[Jen72]

152. Maybe because.....

That child she is carrying, is something she has always dreamed of having. Why should she be denied a chance to have a child?
Child Support is paid because the baby carries his genes,because it is responsible and because a time may come when the relectent father wakes up and see his beautiful child. He may want more involvment later.
Also maybe because although a women maybe Pro-Choice, she may be distress at the prospect of aborting her own baby.(I am Pro-Choice but I know that I could never have an abortion, unless it was found to be several handicapped the scan.)
She maybe feel overjoyed with the news that she is pregnant or she may have been raised to believe it is wrong, therefore can not consider it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

206. Those are all her choices

He gets none? Hell, she could even promise she would get an abortion if an accident happened and later change her mind. That leaves her in total financial control for 18+ years.

Sorry, that's ridiculous. If abortion is an acceptable procedure, it's reasonable to say she should have it or that she is taking on the burden of the child ON HER OWN. She can either keep it or give it up for adoption, but the father bears no burden.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

209. If the issue is men want a choice then why the conversation about burden?

It seems to me the only inconsistency in this conversation is on the part of the men involved. When it comes to the choice of carrying a pregnancy they want a choice as well. The minute they have none, it becomes a "burden"...interesting.

Funny thing is, they CANNOT biologically SHARE the burden of the pregnancy which is a burden whether one goes full term or not. Therefore, it is EASY to be the male in that equation.

I think where the law errs must be on the side of the one taking all the health risks, if it is going to err at all. To err otherwise creates a much greater encumberance than a monthly check.

[Muddleoftheroad]

211. Encumbrance?

A check for 18 or more years is slightly more than that.

You are saying that even if I am dating someone for 5 years and know she is opposed to having kids, that we have talked about it, we use protection AND she is on the pill, that she can still change her mind at the last minute and I have to pay for 18 years?

That is ludicrous.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

218. Guess what Muddle? If you are together for say 7 to 10 years in most

states and one of you creates a tax liability, the other is liable for it...so what?

I got it...you think it's not fair...so what?

I think it's unfair that men can't conceive and don't get a period...ever 28 days I ruminate about it....so what?

[Muddleoftheroad]

221. Facts of law vs. facts of biology

Can't help you on the facts of biology. Men have downsides, so do women biologically speaking.

However, we are supposed to be equal under the law. This is not the case in this situation. The woman gets to make a life-altering financial decision for the man. This will need to change.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

225. Oh I see..so instead a man should get to impose a physical risk on a woman

and then things will be more equal? Preposterous!

I really think men who are SO concerned should invest their time and finances on the ability of men to carry a pregnancy full term. If science can clone, science will figure that out. Then you will have LOTS of choices that concern YOUR body. Until then, you continue to confuse the rights of a child to the rights of a woman carrying simply because it is convenient to do so no matter HOW illogical.

[Muddleoftheroad]

286. Actually quite the opposite

The woman should not be able to impose a financial commitment on the man. Let her have the abortion all she wishes. If she wishes to go ahead with the birth, that is her choice and hers alone. That means the obligation should be hers as well. If you fear for her financial survival, there are many adoption agencies out there who could help her.

I am for freedom of choice. Let the men choose whether or not they wish to be parents.

[Booberdawg]

290. The law is not on your side.

The financial responsibility is to the child, not to the woman.

Whether you see it or not, child support is a separate issue from the decision to have an abortion. And so the law agrees, and so the law dictates.

[Muddleoftheroad]

292. And so the law will be changed

The law clearly discriminates against the man here.

Both people choose to have sex. But then the man's choices stop, but the woman keeps on having rights.

That will be litigated and sooner or later overturned.

[Booberdawg]

303. It is the CHILD who then has the rights once born, not the woman

You refuse to see the the difference, but that does not change the facts or the law.

You claim to be able to change the law on this issue, but I guarantee you will not. No doubt many dead beat dads have championed this very argument and failed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

313. Laws change

That fact is constant. I don't know if I personally can change this law, but it will change because it is so ridiculously unfair to men.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

336. Really? Like the one that contributed 100,000 to Reagan while avoiding

child support?

What you are arguing throughout this thread, unbeknownst to yourself is that NATURE ISN'T FAIR.

I think that every month when I bleed and wish it were you instead of me. Tough.

[Tansy_Gold]

338. The payment of support to the child is not unfair nor one-sided

The woman is only able to collect child support ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD if she also takes the responsibility to raise it. This is not a one-way street. She contributes her portion -- cash, time, blood sweat and tears, worry, etc. ALL he is required to contribute is cash.

The guys who are so vocal against this seem to be using an argument that they are bound to pay the full price while the mother gets off paying nothing. AU CONTRAIRE.

If she decides against raising the child, either through abortion or adoption, she's off the hook and so is he. Fair and square, even steven.

The only scenario the guys object to is when they don't want the kid but she does, for whatever reason, and she decides he has to live up to his obligation TO THE KID.

That obligation was sealed when they had sex -- obligation to any child that might be born of the union. She is not obligated to carry it, but if she does, he's obligated to help pay for it.

Options? Choices? You think it's all up to the woman? You've got all kinds of choices, ranging from vasectomy to condom to masturbation. You want free and easy naked-penile-tissue-to-naked-vaginal-tissue sex, then you accept the consequences, and part of that is accepting the responsibility that if she gets pregnant and decides to keep it. And you can't possibly suggest at this point that you're uninformed of potential consequences (which is why SOME of us are sooooo insistent on real sex education instead of just "oooh, noooo, don't do that dirty deed!").

You would much prefer that things stay the way they were in the good ol' days, when you had free run of the earthly brothel, to plant your squiggly little seeds wherever you felt like it. To brand any woman who had sex with you a fallen hussy and thus fair game for any future forays by you and/or your friends. Etc. Etc.

What some of us are saying here is no fucking way. You wanna have sex, you accept the responsibilities. Be a MAN about it, instead of a quivering dick. Quit whining.

Sheesh, I'm wondering why any DU-ish woman would want to get into the sack with these guys. I'll bet they're just as insensitive to the sexual pleasure of their partners as they are when it comes to taking care of the results. Ick.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

341. Lol I think you are actually directing that communication to the poster

to which I responded. I am in complete agreement that this is nothing more than DOUBLESPEAK...if you watch their arguments closely, at the egg or fetus stage, it is a VALUABLE lifemaking decision of which they want to be a part...once there is a LIVE ACTION KID, it is a burden the woman uses to trap the man with....what a load of sexist shit intended to do nothing more than dominate women and make them second class citizens in the matter of their own bodies :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

347. That's OK, the compliments cut both ways

What we rebel against is a woman making all of OUR life decisions for us. Funny, women seem to dislike men doing that. Interesting how they expect the reverse though.

No we know we are not bound to pay the full price, what we resent is mandatory parenting when the woman can opt out repeatedly throughout the process but men can't.

You and others keep saying this is an obligation to the child, but that ignores the reality of the situation. The woman, by refusing to go ahead with a perfectly legal medical procedure -- abortion -- or a perfecly legal follow-up -- adoption -- is making financial decisions for the man.

No, men actually have few options. Women and men have the same options at point one, where they have sex. After that, women have repeated choices and seem to get angry that men might want some of the same.

We are being men about this. We expect equal treatment. Women have pushed for choice for centuries. They have it and now men don't. THAT won't last.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

358. No you are being BABIES about this and it shows

The deliberate COLLAPSE of issues is a STRAW MAN designed to continue to obfuscate. That is why the best you can do is REPEAT your faulty logic over and over.

You CONVENIENTLY neglect ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES that go along with all those extra choices that you claim the mother has. Those repeated choices carry all the risks you might have (such as financial) along with several you DON'T such as DEATH.

There are cases in which things CANNOT by design be COMPLETELY EQUAL and therefore the law MUST err on the side of extending the greatest RIGHTS to those MOST impacted by the extension of such. In this case it is the WOMAN and in matters of child support it is the CHILD.

You are NOT behaving like a man on this subject, you are behaving like a stomping, crybaby juvenile.

[Tansy_Gold]

359. Worse than babies.

At least babies don't know any better.

These jerks ought to.


Tansy Gold, with no sympathy

[Muddleoftheroad]

360. You repeated neglect the obligation women put on men here

At least you are consistent.

When women and men have sex, they equally share those risks. However, the woman wants to take on all of the activites thereafter and simply treat the man as a checkbook. Well, we aren't that.

Yes, pregnancy puts women at risk, so does giving birth. SHE gets to make those choices. Adoption does not put a woman at risk. It is a life choice to raise that child. She, however, is making that choice for both her and the man.

[Name removed]

361. Deleted message

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

[Booberdawg]

364. What she said

:thumbsup:

Oh but NSMA, he is going to have the current laws changed to confrom with his views that men are the victims of their own choice to fuck without regard to consequences of their OWN choices. It's all women's fault and their responsibility to deal with the consequences of men who want to get their rocks off.


What a load of self-serving and sexist horse shit. Responsible fucking is just not an option when one works so much overtime at triangulation and obfuscation of the facts in order to play the victim.

Fortunately, most men DO understand what utter bullshit this is.

[Tansy_Gold]

363. women don't put it on men -- men put it on themselves.

Look, as I said before, the sexes aren't identical. We know that under current conditions, it takes one male and one female to create a fetus, and that fetus can only grow in the body of the female. Nature didn't make things identical or equal.

But socially, legislatively, legally, morally, and ethically, we are saying -- and you are wholeheartedly disagreeing -- that there ought to be some attempt at equivalency of responsibility.

We can't change the fact that once she is pregnant, the woman is stuck with certain responsibilities. Those responsibilities cannot be shifted to the male. UNLESS WE GIVE MEN THE RIGHT TO FORCE PREGNANT WOMEN TO CARRY CHILDREN TO TERM AGAINST THEIR WILL, the woman is the only one who can physically opt to complete or terminate the pregnancy. Physiologically there is no way for her to say to him, "Hey, I don't want this baby, but if you do, you can have it. We'll transfer the embryo from my uterus into yours and you can have it."

For that reason, we believe that the right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy should belong solely and unobstructedly to the woman. No man should have the power to veto her wishes to terminate the pregnancy, not even if he wants the baby. He can't gestate it himself, so as unfair and sexist as nature is, we believe it is even more unfair to give him the power to trump the woman's wishes. If we did give him that power, then there would be nothing to stop men from raping women at will and getting them pregnant and forcing them to have children they didn't want. yes, that's an extreme, but we have to look at where our decisions will take us further down the road.

The rights of decision over whether to gestate or not are completely separate legally, whether you like it or not, from the responsibilities of support to the born child. The decision to gestate is the decision the woman makes over the use of her own body. All of the alternatives involve risks, and not all of them are easily accessed, as I have posted frequently. Yes, her decision to abort effectively eliminates her obligations to the born child, but that is secondary to her right to control her own body.

The prospective parents, when they have sex, enter into an implied contract to provide support for the child if it is born. Knowing that this risk exists, and knowing that she has additional risks which the man will never share -- the physical risks of pregnancy -- the woman still has all the identical obligations to the born child -- to provide for its support. She can do this either by raising it herself or by giving it up for adoption. An attempt was made in Florida a year or so ago to give unidentified fathers the right to make decisions regarding the mothers' giving up their children for adoption. When it was discovered that forcing women to publish their sexual history in local newspapers and try to identify the men, it was discovered that many of the men didn't want the risk of being identified. It was also discovered that the ignominy of having to publish their sexual history might send girls and young women into the hands of abortionists rather than adoption agencies. So the law was effectively dropped. In essence, the men got off the hook.

One of the problems is that many times the women who have these children -- the case in Wisconsin or Cincinnati or wherever it was comes to mind, the guy with eight or nine children by six or seven different women, all on welfare -- often end up on public assistance because the fathers won't support the children. Welfare reform has effectively kicked these women onto the curb, so to speak, to fend for themselves, and their children too. By having no involvement with the women after having sex with them, the men aren't even aware that they're pregnant, or aware that they've had a child. They didn't care about the woman enough to stick around. And now they want to disavow any responsibility for the child.

If the man has the right to disavow his financial responsibility, who will take it on? Will the woman then be forced to take on all the responsibility? Yes. Or public assistance. Or she may be forced to give up her child for adoption because she can't afford it even though she wants it. And your attitude would be, too bad, she shouldn't have had sex.

No, she shouldn't, but neither should the man. He gets off, in this case, with NOT ONE SHRED of responsibility, just because he chooses to. When she chooses abortion, which again is entirely separate from the child support equation, she is also letting him off the hook, and he takes no risks in having the abortion. None.

In essence, the refusal to accept financial responsibility allows the male to have complete and total freedom to engage in irresponsible sex with anyone he chooses, no regrets, no responsibilities. All the risks, all the choices, all the decisions, all the FINANCIAL responsibilities would then rest entirely on the woman -- yet she would not have the access to resources (insurance, equal pay, availability of abortion services, even contraception) to put her on a fully equal financial footing with the man.

What we're saying is that the requirement for men to accept financial responsibility is the only way to make the risks and responsibilities roughly equivalent between the male and female as regards the child, who had no say in the matter. it's not a perfect world, and it's not a perfect decision. But it is the closest we can get to making it as fair to all concerned.

I know many of you won't agree. You think any imposition on the male is inherently unfair. We think letting the guys off with no responsibility at all is unfair.

The sad thing about this whole discussion is that it probably ultimately won't really affect very many people involved in the debate. The ones who will benefit, in the event such legislation should ever be passed, are the irresponsible dickwads who go around poking their tools into every willing and unwilling pussy they can find. They not only don't give a shit about the women they're fucking, they don't give a shit about women in general. They have no use for women except as sexual servicers.

A responsible man chooses his sexual partners as intelligently as a responsible woman chooses hers. They discuss contraception before they have sex, and they even discuss the risks and the decisions they'll make if the contraception fails. they don't lie to each other, and they don't play games.

If you're worried that some eager young chickie is after your money and is going to try to trap you into paying for her kid, then maybe you better not be screwin' her. If you don't trust the woman, then maybe you don't know her well enough to be having irresponsible sex with her -- or any kind of sex with her.

I'm not a prude. I had my high old times when I was younger, and I don't deny that sex is a powerful urge and a helluva lot of fun. But responsible sex means not just pulling on a Trojan: it means being a responsible human being. It means understanding that actions have consequences, and if you aren't prepared to face the consequences -- ALL the consequences -- then maybe you shouldn't be engaging in the actions. And yes, that goes for the women, too.

the truth is, most child support isn't paid by the fathers of unwanted pregnancies -- it's paid by ex-husbands who have gotten tired of one wife and wanted a new one, or by live-in lovers who took off for whatever reason. the issue of non-support because they had no say in whether the mother chose abortion or not is really moot. The whole discussion has really been about the rights of men -- the slimebuckets and the decent ones alike -- to have free sexual access to all women. It's about second class personhood. it's a discussion that really belonged on that other site that we shouldn't mention.

Tansy Gold

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

368. Yes and you repeatedly neglect the obligation men put on women

to have sex at all.

LOGICAL FALLACY NUMBER ONE:

However, the woman wants to take on all of the activites thereafter and simply treat the man as a checkbook. Well, we aren't that.

I know of no woman who says, gee I hope to be a broke single mother one day.

Lapse of LOGIC number two:

Adoption does not put a woman at risk.

In your deep thought on the matter, you perhaps forgot to consider that a woman goes through a stage where she bonds as the egg matures and becomes a person inside her...so adoption is just as difficult a choice as abortion.

LOGICAL FALLACY NUMBER THREE:

YOu act as though the male is the only one financially supporting the child.

Frankly my prior post was removed but I think you have lodged enough venom towards women to have deserved to have the contents of the post directed towards you.


It is very clear you are interested in DOMINATION and expect there to be EQUALITY where nature itself offers none.

YOu deliberately confuse the rights of a woman with the rights of a child and continue on that path as thoug if you repeat it enough times it will be correct.

You DELIBERATELY confuse who it is that gets the cakewalk and you DELIBERATELY abdicate yourself of responsibility where it is convenient but then think you should GET some say where it is ENTIRELY unwarranted since it isn't your body.

Why do you even bother with women? Maybe a man would be more amenable to your issues.

[hiphopnation]

300. No.

Let the men choose whether to get into bed in the first place or not. The impositions of men have been hoisted upon women in this society for long enough. If a man is slut, he deals with the consequences, period. That's the law and it is on the side of NSMAM. If you feel that is unfair, tough.

You are framing this very complex issue soley around the man's pocketbook and that is extremely shallow.

edit: spelling

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

335. They do get to choose and your responses all operate under the pretense

that they don't.

You are simply for the freedom of men fucking who they want void af any responsibility.

I say, let's ask the child at one month old to sign a contract opting out of being supported by the man that fathered it.

It makes about as much sense as YOUR choice that the mother trade away the child's rights.

Again, the pretense that you could not get a vasectomy if you are going to "spread your seed" far and wide is preposterous. Vasectomies are reversible now and there are sperm banks where you can deposit you genes for later reference.

The ABSOLUTE PRETENSE on your part that this is about freedom rather than control and domination is laughable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. If I was told I'd caused a pregnancy and she was going to abort it

I wouldn't have any say in the matter. And I guess I shouldn't. I am firmly pro-choice. But it would still haunt me for the rest of my life, I would always wonder who my child might have grown up to be.

[judge_smales]

9. ??

" And I guess I shouldn't"

Why not? Two people "made" the child, should'nt they both have a say in what to do next?

[MuseRider]

10. That is a good part

of the reason that abortion is never a decision made lightly like the RW would have us believe.

[Clete]

20. So remember those little rubber thingies?

Responsible sex would reduce the chances of this happening. Procreation is something that should be discussed between couples before it happens. A woman should never feel she has to bear children. If a man wants them then he should find a willing female.

[Jen72]

159. The woman that terminates the pregnancy will most

likely grieve for the prospect of that child, it is not an easy
decison for anyone. The woman may get nightmares, guilt attacks,
regets. If you and your partner care for each other, you would talk about these things and help each other.
If you really want a women to have your child, prove to her that you are committed to life with her, no matter what happens.
If she fears that you will leave her, in times of stress or when she can't have sex for months after she tears giving birth, she may not be overjoyed to have you child and be linked to you for life.

[MuseRider]

7. I would have to say

that they should have no say at all. Now, let me qualify that. There are many men out there who are wonderful, who would be thrilled to have the chance to be a father and their opinion should be considered. Unfortunately this choice must be all or none. There are far too many who for reasons of their own leave, offer no support and the woman is left to deal with the children alone, often in poverty. For this reason I do not believe men should have any say about it. If, in your relationship you feel confident then yes, joint decision, but because this is not always the case we have to say no.

[lysergik]

11. Ok, but..

.. If a man does not want a child and the woman decides to have it anyhow, he should not be liable to provide support for that child.

It is unfair to men who experience an accidental pregnancy and are trapped into supporting a child they did not agree on supporting. All too many times anymore are women using pregnancy to entrap male partners to manipulate them for monetary reasons.

I completely agree that lawmakers should have no say in a persons sexual or reproductive life. People should be able to make their own decisions on these matters. But when it takes two to tango, that decision should be left to those parties involved.

[Love Bug]

27. So, how do you really want it?

What happens to the child who carries your DNA because the mother refused to abort? What does the mother tell that child when it is 5, 10, 15, 20? "I'm sorry, honey, your father didn't want anything to do with you because I decided to have you and he didn't want the responsibility/the condom broke/I "trapped" him."

Also, prove this statement: "All too many times anymore are women using pregnancy to entrap male partners to manipulate them for monetary reasons." Oh, yeah, the $150/month I got for child support in the 80s was a real windfall for me and my daughter.

It takes two to tango, buddy, so if you don't want to be "trapped" into an "accidental pregnancy" you might want to either keep it zipped or only have sex with a woman you trust. If you don't want kids at all, well, have a vasectomy.

[Yupster]

73. It's pretty much a cottage industry

among groupies who follow NBA teams around.

[PissedOffPollyana]

13. Until they grow a uterus of their very own...

Opinion? Yes. Say? Nope.

Actually, I think it would be fair if men could permanently opt out of parental rights in the first 3-4 months of pregnancy too. This way, a woman would know right away that they will not be able to hold them accountable for $$ and decide based only on their ability to raise the child alone. Mind you, the men would not be able to reverse it later but also would not be stuck without a choice if the woman decides to keep the baby. If it ever gets really easy to, in effect, move the fetus to the womb of a surrogate, I would say that the father should have the right to pay for the procedure & allow the woman the same choice to sign away parental rights.

It seems the most equal way to do it, anyway...
~Mich

[goddess40]

14. Sure - they always have and always will

It before they unzip there pants. After that it isn't up to them any more. I guess that is one good reason to KNOW who you're having sex with. Not to mention AIDS and other nasty diseases or "unknowingly" having sex with a minor.
My hubby's nephew spent time in jail for the last one, and he deserved it.

[mainegreen]

31. I totally disagree.

If the sexes are equally the stance of 'before they unzip their pants' is totally offensive. That says that women are inferior partners in the choice to have sex.

Plus the choice to have sex is not the same as the choice to have a child. If I take a car out for a test drive am I obliged to buy it?



edited for spelling

[goddess40]

36. One ride in a car can't make a life long obligation

one time of sex can, But men are required by law or culture to raise an unwanted child. While a women has the right to give up an unwanted child culturally she is branded as bad by too many. Besides to give up a child for adoption means she had to go through the pregnancy and NO ONE has the right to force another to carry an unwanted prenancy to term.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. Not in any legislative sense

I think men should have a "say" in personal relationships, however. That is to say, they should be able to have some input, maybe not even 50%, but some.

[ComerPerro]

40. I like that wording

Yeah, we should have say in the decision, and I think the woman involved should hopefully respect us enough to listen to our points.

But I don't think men should be able to sue to force a woman not to get an abortion.

[redqueen]

18. I'm torn...

While I agree that until men can carry the baby themselves, then mother nature has pretty much decided this issue for them, I also see that it's unfair that though they can't decide whether or not the baby is born, that they still have to pay for it.

I think that goddess40 said it best -- they can choose to not risk the whole kit and kaboodle, and if they do, then the die is cast and they have to face the consequences whatever they may be.

[Yupster]

78. But why doesn't that same logic apply to women then?

"they can choose to not risk the whole kit and kaboodle, and if they do, then the die is cast and they have to face the consequences whatever they may be."

If this seems reasonable logic for men, then why is it not reasonable logic for women?

Also, if we're going to go by "mother nature," then I think the natural state of things is that the woman gets pregnant and the man goes looking for other women to impregnate.

I think the fairest way is to give each parent the choice of whether they want to parent the coming baby.

The woman should still get the full decision on whether it's born or not.

[redqueen]

85. Yes, but given that she has that decision...

That does not absolve the man of his responsibility for funding the upbringing. The consequence of her becoming pregnant is carrying and raising the baby, not providing all material support.

Again, if a man doesn't want to risk providing this kind of support, there's always abstinence, just as if a woman doesn't want to risk getting pregnant, she can abstain.

Just because she has the alternative of ending the pregnancy doesn't mean she can undo the pregnancy. The scars of that abortion are real and stay with her a lifetime.

[Yupster]

98. You lost me completely?

"the consequence of her becoming pregnant is carrying and raising the baby..."

So you're pro-life? I'm even more confused than my normal state.

[Rainbowreflect]

19. My husband and I have debated this more than a few times.

He says a man does not have any say in what a women does. I think if a couple is together and have a good relationship his thoughts should be taken into account. Although the woman does get the final say what happens with her body.

[Yupster]

79. If the woman has 100 % of the say, then

the man has 0 % of the say.

He can make a beautiful argument, full of flowery prose and great commitments.

The woman can still say "everything you said is beautiful, wonderful and coorect. I still want to have an abortion."

Currently the man has no say. Only financial responsibility.

[cally]

22. I think the man

who impregnated the woman should have a say since the decision affects both of their lives. Otherwise, no. Way too many men say they are anti-abortion and want to tell women what to do with their bodies.

[Fescue4u]

23. As long it takes two to conceive a child.

Absolutely.

9 months is nothing when you consider it takes a minimum of 18 years and 9 months to raise a child.

Now if women choose to stop seeking involvement and support from the father, then they have the right shut men out of the decision.

[demnan]

24. I think the man involved in the relationship has a say

and should be considered, but the government should butt out completely.

[Tansy_Gold]

25. Men who don't want babies

shouldn't have sex. Period.

That's what women have been told by the pro-life team for ages. If you have sex and get pregnant, tough. It's yours. You're stuck with it. Even in cases of rape, incest, threats to the mother's health and sanity and life and livelihood -- more often than not in this day and age and in this political climate, the fetal rights should come first, the father's rights second, and the woman is a distant third tier claimant on any rights that might be left over. In other words, she's just a brainless vessel for maturing a fertilized egg.

When a man has sex with a woman, he should know that unless he has had a vasectomy, there is a chance she will become pregnant. And she is the only one who can. that pregnancy may kill her -- it won't kill him. that pregnancy may maim her for life -- it won't hurt him.

the risks the man takes are emotional -- gee, what if she gets pregnant and decides to abort and I don't want her to? -- and financial -- gee, what if she gets pregnant and decides to sue me for child support?

even if he accepts the burden of those emotional risks, can they compare to the similar risks the woman faces? That zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is PART OF HER. she has nourished it with her blood. it is inside her. it is not some abstract little bit of a haploid sperm cell jettisoned in a moment of . . . . whatever.

child support payments rarely cover the full cost of raising a child. Again, there's the issue of emotional burden, physical burden. A man writes out a check and it's over and done with; the woman is left with the day to day burden, the taking off work and sitting up nights when the kid is sick or not taking off work and missing the school play and dealing with the guilt.

i'm sorry, guys, but when you mess around, you gotta pay the piper, and in this case the woman has (IMHO) 99% of the responsibility and 100% of the rights. she is first in line, the baby is second and you, sorry, are third. Don't like it? then don't have sex.

You don't want to risk that she'll abort "your" child? Then don't have sex with her. You don't want to risk that any woman might abort "your" child? Then don't have sex. You want to have it without any risks to you, but you don't want to take responsibility for the risks that are hers no matter what.

The idea of late-term abortiobn bothers me, and I admit it. But the idea of denying women control over their own most personal possession -- their bodies -- bothers me one fucking hell of a lot more.

Tansy Gold, militant radical feminist and savage pro-choicer

[GOPisEvil]

30. I can't argue with any of that. Well stated. (n/t)

[judge_smales]

32. But if a woman has irresponsible sex

it's 100% OK bec' she can get an abortion without asking anybody. No "piper" to pay.

A little one-sided, no?


And the baby is't a part of the man? That's 100% pure, anadulterated BS.

[ComerPerro]

44. Nobody just "gets an abortion"

like it is an item on their "to-do" list.

Pick up dry cleaning
Buy milk
Return books to library
Have abortion
Lunch

Conservatives like to pretend that people just have abortions whenver they want, sometimes once every few months.

Just because I am pro choice doesn't mean that I try and get women pregnant just so they can have an abortion.

Its not the baby-killing orgy that the right makes it out to be.

And, above all, its not a decision that anyone makes lightly.

You would be hard pressed to find women who consistantly use abortion as birth control, as you have suggested here

[judge_smales]

51. That's not what I suggested here.

What I've sugested is that it's one sided to allow one party to a dacveision that affects several to have ALL the power.

That's just wrong.

[Liberal Veteran]

45. No it isn't.

Do you mourn the loss of skin you shed each day or the urine you produce or the hair that falls out as some "loss" of you"?

[judge_smales]

53. That's not even

Close to a legitemate comaprison. Do you really think that men have no feelings for their children?

[Liberal Veteran]

58. Of course men have feelings for their children....

...but they are not the ones who have to risk their health and lives for 9 months to bring children in the world. That gives them power to make the decision.

[Tansy_Gold]

70. the baby is NOT part of the man

It is conceived using one tiny sperm cell, one of millions that he produces, the far largest percentage of which are completely wasted.

For most men there is no thought in the procreative process that "Gee, I could get pregnant; I'm taking a huge risk with my life, my body, and the potential baby."

So what should we do, make the laws to protect the few men who take all this risk-taking seriously and ignore the rights of the majority of women who get stuck with the fetus and no rights? Oh, yes, protect that tiny MALE minority (the majority of whom would never exercise these rights anyway) but ignore the women.

Sorry, but I will NEVER ignore the women.


Tansy Gold

[Fescue4u]

251. if you talking about raw material.

I suppose, but a human is far more than the sum of their raw material.

Sorry, a baby is half the man in any reasonable sense except for the raw materials aspect (which of course is ludicrous)

[Tansy_Gold]

255. Ah, aristotelian logic

The woman is just the empty vessel. The sperm is the thing, the real essence, the active principle.

Bah. Humbug.

the raw materials ARE the thing. The blood, the nourishment, the energy, the lost sleep, the pain, the fear, the risk.

Physiologically, the male can (and often does) walk away after intercourse and never have another thing to do with the fetus and it can still grow and thrive. Without the mother, on the other hand. . . .


Fatherhood is a cultural institution, not a biological one.

[NicoleM]

107. Spoken like someone

who has never been pregnant. I am. This baby is made up of my genes and my husband's genes, but right now it is PART OF MY BODY. It's not part of his body.

When men throw up until their throats bleed, when almost their entire body goes through huge changes that they can't currently imagine, get back to me. And so far I only know what the first four months of pregnancy are like.

[Tansy_Gold]

116. Brava, Nicole

I was lucky in one respect -- never a moment of morning sickness.

For any man to say "Nine months is nothing compared to 18 years of child support," shall we ask him which he would rather be, pregnant or just writing out a check once a month?

Pregnancy is an enormous life experience -- physically, emotionally, financially, culturally. My children were both born in the mid-1970s, when almost every other woman I knew was either pregnant, had small children, or was jealous of those who were. Two of my friends who had given birth within a few months of each other faced divorce within a year, because their husbands were so disappointed that their wives weren't "back to normal" -- meaning sexually -- right after giving birth.

Another endured three pregnancies in two and a half years and nearly died. Only when faced with the very real possibility of raising three children without a mother did her husband agree to let her have a tubal ligation. (No vasectomy for him, good Catholic that he was, lest something happen to her and he not be able to father other children with a new wife.)

Once again, the risks of pregnancy -- not parenthood -- are borne only by the woman. She ALONE should have the choice of terminating it.

[NicoleM]

122. We could ask him but

he would probably choose pregnancy, because he just can't know what it's like. Nobody can, until you've done it.

[Yupster]

81. What about women?

If they don't want babies should they not have sex period? Or is this just a one-sided restriction?

[Tansy_Gold]

108. Yes, it is a one-sided restriction, because. . . .

. . . . women are the only ones who can **be** pregnant.

If a man is forced to have sex against his will, or coerced, or whatever, he still can't get/be pregnant. He can't become pregnant through the failure of birth control.

Parenthood -- the taking care of the child *after* it's born -- can be the responsibility of both parents (or even more than two in some cases) but gestation can only be carried out by the woman. what the man does before conception and after birth are relatively outside the scope of this discussion.

If a man has the ultimate decision over a woman's right to have an abortion, even if he is the "father" of the fetus, that opens the door even in the realm of discussion to allowing any man to force any woman to have children: through rape, through incest, through coercion, through deception. "Oh, well, yes, sorry, I lied about that vasectomy but now you're pregnant, haHA, so now I've got you where I want you, breeding with MY CHILD and since you clearly don't want to have it, I'm going to imprison/hospitalize/institutionalize you until it's born AND THEN I'M GOING TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU AND NEVER LET YOU SEE IT AGAIN. BECAUSE IT'S MINE, ALL MINE, AND THE LAW SAYS I CAN."

Women can't force men to have vasectomies, but the economics of our country often force women into relationships that are not ideal. And in some cases, women can't even have themselves sterilized without their husband's consent. Many of them can't afford elective surgery. many insurance plans don't cover contraceptives. Condoms are available over the counter, but there are still a lot of men who don't like using them, especially married men who think they don't need the STD protection and if the wife gets pregnant, well, hell, they're married, aren't they?

There are also the men who don't have any resources to pay child support -- or those who make it look like they don't have resources. An acquaintance of mine, when faced with $2500/month child support payments quickly quit his job, liquidated his properties, gambled himself into bankruptcy and never paid a penny. He then formed his own company, put it in the name of his new girlfriend, who paid him minimum wage while "supporting" him on his own seven-figure earnings. All perfectly legal, and because he showed only minimum wage earnings, his ex-wife got nothing. Was he a slime bucket? IMHO, absolutely. I wish there were a way to have gone after him. But would I advocate that no woman can voluntarily support a man on his own earnings? No, not hardly.

Again, the point to this whole discussion seems to be that SOME men seem to have a morbid fear that they might have sex with a woman who might get pregnant and want to abort. I'm really sorry that men can't get pregnant and have their own babies, but the fact remains that they have to use women for that function. And maybe I'm just being ultra-feminist about this, but I figure what the hell -- men have lorded so much shit over women for so damn long, that this is one issue I'm not going to back down on.

If you don't want to have a baby, if you don't want to risk that the baby's mother might want to abort, if you don't want to risk that she might divorce you and break your heart and run off with your best friend (there is no legislation about that, either) and sue for child support, then don't have sex.

Life has risks. But we tend normally to assign the responsibility for the decision making to the person who takes the most risks. The responsibility for and risks involved in a pregnancy can't be allocated, therefore I don't see how the right to make a decision over the termination of a pregnancy can be allocated to anyone other than the person who takes the real risks.

Sure, a "father" may be emotionally distraught over an aborted pregnancy, but he may also be emotionally distraught when his wife leaves him for another man (or woman). Women have borne the brunt of divorce and begging for child support and all the rest for far too long. I will not be silent and I will not be cowed into giving an inch on this issue.

The ONLY person who can make the decision and who should have the RIGHT to make the decision is the pregnant woman. She, more than anyone else, will have to live the rest of her life (even if it doesn't extend past the pregnancy) with the results of that decision. No man should ever, ever, ever have the right to trump her decision.

If he is involved with her, if he loves her, he will understand. If he's more concerned about the fruit of his loins, then he doesn't really care about her at all and should just fuck off.


Tansy Gold

[Yupster]

113. It seems if women are the only ones to get pregnant, then

the advice to the man to keep his pants zipped would seem to be even more important for the woman.

I don't get why this is advice to the man but not the woman?

The rest of your post about rapes and such I guess was responding to someone else.

My argument is that only the woman should decide whther she gives birth, but the man should also decide whether he takes on any obligations to his potential child. Regardless of his decision, the woman would still have the say in whether the baby is born or not.

[Tansy_Gold]

131. You missed the point.

Oftentimes women would just as soon NOT HAVE SEX because they don't want babies. Unfortunately, there are many circumstances under which women do not have that choice: they are economically dependent on the man who is pressuring them to have sex is the most common. Or they are underage and don't really understand the consequences.

This discussion, however, is about whether or not men should have the right to prevent a woman they've gotten pregnant from having an abortion and, tangentially, if they should be required to accept financial responsibility in the event she chooses not to abort.

The man has the opportunity to avoid responsibility by avoiding sex. If he doesn't want to pay child support, don't have sex. By engaging in sex, regardless what assurances the woman has given him regarding her fertility or lack thereof, he is accepting the risk for all the potential consequences -- that she will become pregnant, have an abortion against his will, and/or ask for child support.

Women who voluntarily engage in sex also assume the risks of pregnancy, but they have far less opportunity to escape the responsibility than men, and you would restrict them even further just so you could give the men even more rights, more protection, more freedom from responsibility.

The man's duty for child support is not to the woman -- it is to the child. While the woman can give up, hypothetically, her right to SEEK support, and even promise the man that she won't ask for it, he still owes a duty to the CHILD. He accepted that responsbility when he had sex with the woman, with a woman over whose body he should not have any control either to force her to abort or force her to carry to term.

Men can't have babies and men can't get abortions. they shouldn't have any say over the women who can and do.

[Yupster]

143. I was just joking about the sex is rape remark

but really, that is kind of the argument you're making isn't it?

Women don't want to but they need the man's money. I guess that wouldn't be rape. More like prostitution I guess. I hope you're not in one of these terrible situations. It would seem awful. I don't know if it would be rape, but it would certainly seem like imprisonment. Hopefully you're just talking about people, not your own situation.

Pretty repugnant argument to me -- especially as a married guy who makes a lot of money.

Anyway, in this long thread, the argument really isn't about men saying they should ne able to stop abortions is it? I really haven't seen many posts if any demanding that. It's certainly not my argument anyway.

I agree that a daddy has a duty to his kid to pay. I just think a man should have the right to choose when he becomes a daddy, just like a woman has a right to choose when she becomes a mommy.

[Tansy_Gold]

179. In the real world, it's not a joke

No, I'm not in a relationship like that, but I have known many women who were and are.

Sometimes those of us who are relatively well off financially forget that there are many many who are not. There are many women who, faced with the loss of their welfare benefits and unable to find any kind of job in this economy, get into relationships that are indeed little better than prostitution. the current federal administration is advocating federal funds be spent to push women into marriage -- not push men, you understand, but women, childbearers who need a man to take care of them. Don't you think that these single mothers would have found a man to take care of them if there were any such men to go around?

For a woman without much education, about the only gainful employment available is marriage. And for those who aren't married, the alternative is usually abject poverty --- and worse.

Divorced women usually experience a significant drop in their economic status far greater than their husbands. If the husband's status does drop, it drops less and recovers more quickly than the woman's. We no longer have alimony the way we did 20 or 30 years ago -- women are expected to go out and work full time to support their children even when the husband leaves to take up with a younger woman. And yes, I know that there are exceptions, that there are women who take up with other men. But the economic figures are skewed only in one direction, as are the stats on abuse. The level of abuse and the frequency is still far more violent when it's male on female and far more frequently male on female. Women don't leave abusive relationships because often they can't -- economically. There are too few shelters, too few social services, too few resources.

No, I don't subscribe to the Dworkin school of thought that all sex is rape. But I do believe there is more of marriage as legalized and necessary prostitution than we would really like to think.

I've also seen the divorced fathers who were far better parents than their ex-wives, including my brother who raised two daughters when his wife just up and flew the coop. He would have divorced her six months into the marriage, but she got pregnant and stated to me that she did so because she knew he wouldn't leave a baby. She was right: he didn't leave her or the girls. A friend raised his son from age three after his wife -- who had "trapped" him into marriage by getting pregnant at age 16 -- got tired of being away from her friends. the friend never complained about being "trapped," though that was what everyone else called it; he said he knew from the get-go that he had a responsibility as soon as he started talking her into having sex, and if she wasn't going to live up to her responsibility, he would.

What I have a problem with is the guys who think they should have all the rights of refusal of responsibility at any stage of the game, like there's no point of no return for them. for the woman, that point is the moment she becomes pregnant. She has responsibilities from then on, whether she chooses to abort or not. She has responsbilities to herself and to her child. The guys -- some of them at least -- seem to think they should have an unlimited escape clause.

As I've said before, I don't fucking think so.

[Yupster]

262. I really had no idea that there are so many

millions? tens of millions? of women who consider themselves prostituties to their husbands?

Since my wife is a stay-at-home-mom, and most of our friends are highly paid husbands and stay-at-home wives, I wonder how many of these seemingly happy women actually feel themselves to be filthy prostitutes?

I guess women haven't come nearly as far as I thought they had.

Sure gave me a new thing to think about.

[Tansy_Gold]

340. "highly paid husbands and stay-at-home wives"

Anyone ever heard of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan? "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French?

Sounds like you and your neighbors are pretty darn proud of being able to earn a good living and keep a nice wife at home. Keep her in nice clothes, driving a nice car. Bet you expect her to have supper ready and waiting when you come home, or be dressed to go out to a fancy restaurant or the country club. At your command.

she's an asset to you, isn't she? Someone/something that will help you advance your career? A good mother -- or potential mother -- to the children you'll show off in pictures on your executive desk?

Not necessarily you, personally, Yupster, but men just like you.

You'll introduce her as "my wife, so-and-so," because her status as your possession is more important to YOUR standing than her identity.

You'll joke about her pregnancies, but brag about the children and call them "ours," as if you had anything to do with the gestation beyond that planting of a little sperm.

You'll sympathize with her morning sickness, but you'll whine to the guys at work that you wish she'd quit puking so much because it's interfering with your sex life. You'll look at her vanishing waistline and swollen breasts and wish she weren't turning into a goddamn cow. You'll yell at her mood swings and tell her to quit making such a fuss because you have guests coming to dinner.

You'll criticize her exhaustion before and after delivery, you'll ask her repeatedly when she's going to be ready to have sex again after the baby is born, not just in a physical way but in an emotional and psychological way, and you'll think you're complimenting her when you say, "Hey, it won't be long before you can get back into all those sexy clothes you used to wear. It won't, will it?" because all you really care about is looking at her as an object of sexual desire and not really about how her body has undergone changes that can't be undone.

Once again, the responsibilities of child bearing and pregnancy and child raising are so complex, so far beyond the immeasurably painful <extreme sarcasm> of writing that support check every month. But you don't care about any of that. You don't see it. All you see is that hit on your wallet, and the fact that she doesn't look as good as she used to, and the baby is keeping you awake at night and depriving you of sleep and your wife's sexual favors. After all, you married her for your pleasure, your convenience, and if she can't provide all those, well, what's she good for?

Now, if your attitude toward your wife fits a good portion of the above-mentioned description, maybe she isn't so much a wife and partner but a concubine, a willing one to be sure, but a concubine nonetheless, one who, along with her sexual services, is bought and paid for with the nice house, the country club membership, the new Mercedes or BMW or whatever it is stay-at-home wives with highly paid husbands drive these days. Now, you tell me, is that a form of prostitution or not?

Tansy Gold, who is really angry and bitter today and isn't apologizing.

[Yupster]

365. Boy for non-judgemental people, you guys sure have me figured out

"Now, if your attitude toward your wife fits a good portion of the above-mentioned description,..."

Well, what lecture can you give me if my attitude toward my wife doesn't fit hardly any portion of the above-mentioned description.

It doesn't.

No country club membership. No fancy cars. We either save our money or use it to pay for the best private school in our city for our kid. No fancy clothes. Hardly ever cooks. She's on new diets every month so I have trouble keeping up with what she can eat today. I own a one-man business, so there are no co-workers to joke around with. Our best friends are from our Sunday school class at church, and I sure don't joke about my wife to them.

Really, for people who hate others judging them, I sure have been described pretty thoroughly, in pretty bad terms the last few days, and by people who don't know a darn thing to base their opinions on, other than their prejudices.

Since her pregnancy was handled through a high-risk pregnancy specialist due to her relative age and long time diabetes which is treated with an insulin pump, I did more than sympathize with her morning sickness. She was bed-ridden for the last seven weeks, and spent much time crying as she was afraid her sometimes out-of-control sugar levels were injuring our kid. Anyway, with a wonderful specialist, a helpful mother-in-law, and I'd like to think a helpful husband we got through it and the kid is fine.

My wife has been for many years and remains in fragile health. Luckily Texas has a "high risk insurance pool" for people who can't get insurance like my wife, or we would have been bankrupted by the trips to the emergency room that are pretty regular.

Anyway, that's the high flying life that my trophy wife and I lead.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

153. No because one concerns the woman's rights and one concerns the child's

rights once it becomes a child not a fetus.

[Nederland]

120. Confused

So are you say that the argument:

Men who don't want babies shouldn't have sex. Period.

is a good one, but:

Women who don't want babies shouldn't have sex. Period.

is a bad one?

[Tansy_Gold]

163. See post #108

Most women who consciously and responsibly don't want babies don't have sex or they take serious steps to avoid pregnancy: contraceptives, sterilization, etc. If they do become pregnant, they frequently abort.

But there are many women who do not have that choice, at least nowhere near to the extent that men do. Many women are in quasi-permanent relationships for economic reasons. Many women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are young girls who have been raped by older men, their brothers, their stepfathers.

This discussion, however, is about men who believe that they should be able to have sex at their pleasure and then, again at their pleasure, decide after the fact whether or not to be responsible for the results.

Child support isn't a one-way responsibility. what the non-custodial parent pays is usually far less than what it costs to raise the child, and it certainly has nothing to do with the time and emotional commitment. What you are looking for is sex without risk, sex without pain. I'm not saying women shouldn't seriously consider their actions, but far more often they don't have that option. The man ALWAYS has the option, because he can't ever get pregnant.

It's like one other poster here said, if you want to make sure she's not under age, don't have sex with her.

the woman has the risks of pregnancy no matter what. she has the risk of the abortion. she has the risk of the delivery. she has the risk of the parenting. Yes, I think women should only have sex responsibly, whether they want children or not. But once the pregnancy exists, it's hers, and hers alone. She can't share it with him, she can't push any of the risks off on him. Why should he be able to wipe his hands of any and all responsibility just because, "Oh, i don't think i want to be a father. I changed my mind."

None of the discussion has even touched on the men who mislead women into promising they'll take care of them "if anything happens." And I don't even want to hear about the NBA groupies; we're not talking about them -- as if those NBA players were being held down and raped at gunpoint for child support, yeah, right, GMAFB. I'm talking about your ordinary guy, your ordinary run-of-the-mill DU poster, who thinks he should be able to have sex without any kind of risk or responsibility.

the whole issue seems to be what's *fair* for the men. Well, sorry, but pregnancy has never been "fair" for women.

[Nederland]

320. Dangerous Path

The problem with your argument is that it provides a dangerous legal precedent. Law works off of precedent, and in making this argument you are basically saying that its ok for the law to treat men and women differently. I think you're smart enough to realize that in the long run that's a very very bad idea.

[Tansy_Gold]

342. Not at all

The law treats pregnancy as a condition, just as it treats prostate cancer as a condition. The gender isn't pertinent.

If men get pregnant, they can be treated exactly the same as women are treated when they're pregnant.

So far, it's only women who get pregnant but that could change.

[Nederland]

387. Two seperate issues

There are two seperate issues here. One is the right to abortion, the other is the right to child support. I'm not denying the right of a woman to end a pregnancy without any input from the father. If a woman wants to end her pregnancy that's her business because its her body. That is why it is correct to treat men and women differently with respect to abortion because only women get pregnant.

With regard to child support, however, there is no such distinction--both men and women are capable of financially supporting a child. This is why with regard to child support it is incorrect to treat men and women differently. When you say that a man's right to decide whether or not to support a child ends with the choice to have sex, but the woman's choice ends after the child is born, you discriminating on the basis of gender. That, as I said before, is a dangerous legal precedent that you really don't want to establish.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

388. If the woman is raising the child with time money and energy

and all the man is doing is mailing a check, then what's the problem? How much would all that child rearing energy be worth in the workplace?

This is where your argument falls flat...it assumes money is worth more than time,

BTW, the humorous thing in all these male rights arguments is that I NEVER hear SQUAT about the welfare of the child...only how unfair all of this is to men.

The only time this argument can ever gain ANY ground at all is when you conveniently leave out half the facts. Thank GOD so far the courts have been smarter and more honest than the purveyors of this argument.

[hiphopnation]

302. Well said.

My sentiments exactly. Thank you. :hi:

[CWebster]

28. In

a perfect world.

Until then, no.

[Alenne]

29. He can say whatever he wants to say

but it is my body. If being pregnant was a 50/50 deal than his opinion would matter.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

35. Does this exclusive decision-making cut both ways?

Let's pretend Dick works and Jane stays at home. Does Jane have any say in how income is spent or saved? I would contend that yes, she does.

In like fashion, I would contend that Dick should have his voice heard if Jane becomes pregnant, and they're considering abortion.

Joint decision-making is one of the hallmarks of a partnership.

[Alenne]

49. Those are decisions other people can make for themselves

In my marriage, my decision to have an abortion is mine alone. My husband knows it and has accepted it.


By the way, I do stay at home and I do have a say in how the income is spent. I had an unplanned pregnancy and told my husband what I was going to do about it. I did not ask because I was the one who was bedridden for months and almost had to have a blood transfusion the last time I gave birth. My body was affected by it, not his.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. Subjective, personal decision....that's cool

And the last thing I want is to get on the Neanderthal side of the whole abortion question, because I'm very pro-choice.

On the other hand, and since this is such a subjective and hot issue, I'll use my wife and I as a personal example, not meant to apply to anyone else:
If my wife were to decide to get an abortion, yes, it would have a marked physical effect on her and not on me. But there would be an emotional effect on me, one way or the other. Yes, it would be lesser than the physical manifestations with her, but there nonetheless. In more common-sense terms, the pregancy (or termination thereof) would also affect me, to some lesser degree.

Thanks.

[Muddleoftheroad]

207. That works once

The first time my wife would tell me that would be the last. If we're a couple, then we're a couple. If it's her decision whether or not to abort OUR child, it's her decision to walk out that door, too. If she gets lung cancer, we go through it together. The same goes if I do. Pregnancy is the same. If one person thinks they make all the decisions, they can make them on their own.

[Alenne]

214. My husband understands

My body is mine not his.

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. That's true

And it would be yours ever after as well. Couples make decisions together, individuals who are not in couples make decisions alone.

[Alenne]

229. No one makes a decision about my body but me

not even my husband will force my body to do anything. I did not become the property of anyone when I got married. That is fine for you and your wife but not in my house.

[Muddleoftheroad]

250. Not just a decision for your body

It's a decision for the future of the relationship. If the wife decides to bring another child into an unwelcome relationship, that is horrible.

A friend of mine who is a lawyer would call this a deal killer.

[Alenne]

272. A deal killer for your marriage

but not for mine. It was my decision and there was nothing he could do about it and he knows it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

287. There you are wrong

He could always walk away. Many men would. It is hubris to think such a decision in a marriage should be made by one person. I hope your marriage survives.

[Alenne]

333. My marriage is not in trouble

We don't have control issues and my husband does not think he can force me to have a baby.

[judge_smales]

37. This is about alot more

than the nine months of pregnancy. That's an action that will have profound consequences for BOTH parties for many, many years to come. To say that a man has NO part in the decision because the baby is in the womans body is offensive. Aren't the sexes equal? Or is this retaliatory sexism?

[Alenne]

52. The affects of a pregnancy

on the body is not equal so it is not an equal decision for me. If you are with me you have no say over what I do with my body.

[Liberal Veteran]

64. Are the sexes equal? No...they aren't.

Women don't produce sperm. Men don't have a uterus or egg or actually carry a baby for 9 months. Are the sexes equal as far as workplace and civil opportunity? Yes, they should be. But they are definitely not equal until you are telling me you have the ability to provide a incubator within your body for 9 months and push a baby out god's knows where. Anatomically, men and women are different. That's a fact.

You also don't lactate in order to provide sustenance to a newborn.

[Tansy_Gold]

241. The sexes are equal, but they are not identical

NothingShocksMeAnymore or someone else will probably have the logical fallacy that pertains to this; I'm not a logician and don't have it at hand.

Equality is not the same as identity. By the same token, men and women are far more alike than they are different. With a few exceptions, we all breathe with lungs, have two arms and two legs, two eyes, two ears, eat and drink and sleep, etc.

Reproductively, however, we are different. Not unequal, just different.

Theoretically, therefore -------

When we have voluntary, consensual heterosexual sex, we run the risk that one of us may become pregnant, creating a third party, "the child."

At the point of having sex, both of us assume the responsibility for taking care of the child if/when it is born. the responsibility comes into being for both parties at the point of having sex. This is, for lack of better term, an "implied consent to provide support."

At the point of becoming pregnant, the female partner now has an entirely - ENTIRELY -- separate obligation: bearing all the risks of the physical pregnancy, she alone has the right to decide to carry it to term or end it. This right is completely separate from her obligation, imposed when she agreed to have (consensual) sex, to provide support to the child after its birth.

Her decision to abort or to carry in no way removes the obligation of the sperm donor to the child -- an obligation to provide support after its birth. he incurred that obligation upon having sex, as did the woman.

Should she choose to abort, there is no born child and therefore the obligation on both parties to provide support is nullified.

Should she choose to carry to term and the child is born, the obligation incurred at conception by both parties must be honored.

Women who choose to have their children against the financial wishes of the sperm donors and who then seek support are not asking for 100% of the financial burden to be borne by the SDs; they are only asking for a fair financial contribution, based not on the child's needs or even its rights, but based on the SD's ability to pay. that's how my extremely wealthy acquaintance legally got out of paying any support for his two children; he established his wealth in his new girlfriend's name.

But when a man says he thinks it's unfair for a woman to ask him to help her support his child because he has other things he would rather spend his money on, I feel like :puke:ing on him. He had his fun and now he doesn't want to pay for it, thinks it's all her "choice" not to abort and none of his responsibility.

His responsibility TO THE CHILD began the moment he had sex with its mother. That responsibility cannot be dispelled by any unwillingness he has later on to accept it; he's got it, whether he likes it or not.

If the woman chooses to end her responsibility, she can only do so by aborting or giving up for adoption. In either case, the sperm donor's responsibility also ends. If she chooses to keep the child, she has all the responsibility. It seems only FAIR that the father keep his end of the deal too.

after all, he made his bed and slept in it.

[ThomWV]

33. Veto

The problem with your question is that it doesn't really mean should men have some mandated say-so in the decision making leading or not leading to an abortion. What the question really asks is should a man (whom at best we can only presume to be the biological father, and might have even less stature) have veto power over an abortion that the pregnant woman might otherwise desire. When you see that as the real basis of the question then the only possible answer is no.

[Clete]

42. I was really talking about legislation.

I don't think men have any right to legislate women's reproduction. Only women do. Yes, we have the conservative dolls who would advocate no one get an abortion unless it's a daughter or themselves. But over all I think women as a electorate would make the right legislation about this. Right now we have a bunch of neo-con sexists fueld by fundy male preachers deciding what is best for a woman.

Remember guys when a woman has a baby she is putting her life on the line, something you guys never have to do when you donate the sperm.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Thanks for the clarification

About legislative v personal relationships.

On the legislative, or rule-declaring side of the house, don't forget the guy in Rome whose name I shouldn't mention, lest I get flamed. I don't believe he has any business telling women what to do with their bodies.


On the personal relationship side of this coin, I guess I was thinking hypothetically in terms of my wife and I, if such a time of decision ever came in our marriage. I would definitely want to be heard on the issue.

But I suppose that the majority of abortions in the real world (and no, I don't have any figures handy) are situations where there's an absent boyfriend or one-night stand or similar. In cases like that, I don't believe the male has much of a right to say anything. However, I do disagree with some of the more adamant statements made in various posts in this thread saying men don't have a right to an opinion, etc.

Thanks.

[Tansy_Gold]

80. I sincerely doubt

that most women in serious, committed relationships would blithely over-rule their partners' opinions on an abortion.

I also sincerely doubt that most men in similarly committed relationships would object if their partner chose to abort.

The relationships ought to have been initiated and established on those foundations.

But in relationships where there is no such foundation, we have to have something else -- namely, legislation.

Occasionally -- and not just hypothetically -- there will be those instances where the whole system goes wack-o. I saw it happen with a friend's marriage.

But we can't base legislation that affects hundreds and thousands on the rare instances that affect only a tiny few, and most of them hypothetically.

I'm tired of being asked to feel sorry for the men who *might* have to deal with a woman who *might* want to abort *their* child, when there are so many women who are forced to carry unwanted babies because there's no medical care, no trained physicians, no clinics, no money. Not every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy is your mythical welfare queen. She's a frightened teen-ager who never thought it could happen to her. She's a young mother with two toddlers whose husband forgot to buy condoms and whose health insurance doesn't cover contraceptives. She's a forty-two year old career woman who falls head over heels in love with her married boss. She's a loving wife who has just found out her much-desired fetus is severely handicapped due to a genetic disease and that carrying the pregnancy to term could prevent her from having other normal pregnancies.

All those women would be denied their CHOICE if more and more and more and more and more restrictions are placed on abortion. they're the ones I save my sympathy and pity for, not the sperm-centered dickheads who worry "their" baby might get aborted by some heartless child-hating uterus-tyrant.

[calm_blue_ocean]

115. Unfounded assumption . . .

Actually, opinion polls show that men and women split in pretty much the same way on questions of what the abortion law should be.

[Clete]

117. Yes, but we don't have a 50/50 gender split in Congress,

therefore, until we do, these issues should be put up for a vote for women and by women.

[calm_blue_ocean]

136. Believe me . . .

if you apply direct democracy to the issue, even women-only direct democracy, you will see a lot *fewer* abortion rights than we currently have. Whether you know it or not, the male-dominated Supreme Court is the best friend abortion has ever had in this nation.

You take it to the women, then you really risk that Roe v. Wade will be cut back (but probably not abolished altogether).

[Clete]

176. I think the women in your orbit are in the minority.

Get out in the world at large and you will see the difference.

[calm_blue_ocean]

208. Really, you have an opinion poll showing . . .

disparity between female and male attitudes on abortion questions? I'd love to have a link if you have one.

[Clete]

215. Look at some of the polls on the other threads in this forum.

eom

[calm_blue_ocean]

239. I have seen polls on the Internet that show . . .

a similar split between men and women on identical abortion questions. You haven't cited me anything and you are the one making assertions that men and women feel different on the issue. Weak response.

[Clete]

256. So post the URL's to these polls.

I can't know if I don't see.

[calm_blue_ocean]

267. okay, here we go, get ready to change your opinion . . .

url:

http://www.gargaro.com/plmajority.html

text:

<snip>

January 8, 2001 - Most Say Abortion Is Manslaughter

UTICA, N.Y. (Reuters/Zogby) - In a Zogby ``American Values'' poll respondents were asked to choose between the two statements, ``abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,'' or ``abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.''
The nationwide poll of 1,005 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2% showed that 51% believed that that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter while another 35% said that abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter. Eight percent agreed with neither statement while 6% said they weren't sure.

By party affiliation, 37% of Democrats said abortion was manslaughter while 47% disagreed. Another 67% of Republicans said that abortion was manslaughter while 23% disagreed. Fifty-one percent of independents felt that abortion was manslaughter while 32% said it was not.

By gender, men and women's feeling were statistically the same - 51% of both men and women agreed that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter while 37% of men and 33% of women said that abortion neither destroys a life nor is manslaughter. While 7% of men and 9% of women agreed with neither statement, 5% of men and 7% of women were not sure.

What we asked:

``Please choose the statement that most closely resembles your own opinion.

On abortion.

Statement A. abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.

Statement B. abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.''

<snip>

Where is your url????

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

269. That is essentially a PUSH POLL

[calm_blue_ocean]

270. And your counter-poll link is??? nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

274. I didn't say I HAD a counter poll. The language of this poll is LEADING

[calm_blue_ocean]

304. Leading-ness poll not relevant for our purposes

I am merely showing that women and men have similar public opinion split on abortion. Who cares if the poll is leading, the point is that women and men have a similar split of opinion on this contentious issue.

I continually hear on DU that women are generally for permissive abortion and men against. Nobody ever backs up this assertion. It is DU's version of faith based policy.

[Yupster]

84. No veto power from me

I knoww you weren't answering me, but that's not my argument at all.

I just think a woman should have a right to decide whether to take on the responsibilities of being a mother, and

a man should have the same right to decide whether he should have to take on the financial responsibilities of being a father.

The decision on whether the baby is born or not should still be the decision of the woman.

[ShimokitaJer]

39. Of course men should have a say...

just as white people should have a say in condemning slavery, non-Christians should have a say in resisting church-state collusion, and everyone should have a say in protecting personal privacy.

Anti-abortion activists advocate slavery, subordinating the rights of the mother to the rights of the unborn child.

Anti-abortion activists seek to make the religious definition of "life" beginning at conception the default definition for government.

Anti-abortion activists believe the state should have power to make decisions about the personal lives of its citizens.

I may not have a womb, so there's no chance I'll ever be pregnant, but I damn well have a right to fight against that kind of oppression.

[Selwynn]

41. As a man, I say no.

Unless the women can order me to have a vasectomy or have my testicals removed, and then demand that I be implanted with a kidney stone the size of a golf ball and required to pass it.... that might be more fair. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. No, they shouldn't.

When they have a womb...then they can have an opinion on it.

[judge_smales]

48. So the father isn't

a parent?

[redqueen]

57. Of course the father is a parent, but seriously...

Mother nature has decided this issue already. We are the ones that must carry the child. We are the ones whose lives are put at risk by doing so. We are the ones who are penalized by society for this privilege.

I know, it's not fair. But again, the man has every right to choose not to have sex if he is not confident that the woman shares his opinions wrt pregnancy. However, this is a roll of the dice, and once you gamble, you pay. Women have an option, to have an abortion, which is their right. However, this is a very weighted right. It's not like deciding to buy a car or donate money every month. As Tansy so eloquently put it, the commitment on her part is unmatched in the male/female equation. That being the case (at least until men can carry and bear children), the decision is hers.

[Yupster]

86. Mother nature has decided that after I

impregnate a woman, I should look for more, even more beautiful conquests to spread my seed among.

So if we're going by mother nature, where did this whole child support thing come from?

Many people don't want the state involved in reproductive rights, unless it's to force the father to ante up his wallet.

[redqueen]

90. But we're not solely going by nature.

Only where we're forced to (e.g. men can't carry the children they want, when the woman decides to abort). Where we're not forced to resort to laws of physics, laws of fairness kick in (e.g. men who impregnate women who don't want to have an abortion have a responsibility to share the responsibility they helped to create).

[Yupster]

99. I guess fairness depends on which gonads you have

Fairness to me would be to let the man opt out of parenting with plenty of time to allow the woman to make an informed decision on her pregnancy.

I guess fairness to others is to let the woman make 100 % of the decision and then raid the man's paycheck for the next 18 years.

I guess it depends on whether you're the one sending the check or receiving it.

[NicoleM]

111. Forgive me

but as the daughter of a deadbeat dad, I have no sympathy for parents whose paychecks are raided.

Let's say that a man gets a chance early in the pregnancy to "opt out" of parenthood. Here are some what ifs:

1. What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant until it's too late to give the man the requisite amount of decision time? My mom didn't know she was pregnant with me until four months.
2. What if a man chooses to opt out, and the woman can't take care of the kid financially on her own? Then what? Do I have to pay for her to raise your kid?

[Yupster]

114. Answers

1. Let's come up with some reasonable time frane. What do you think is reasonable? Four months? Five months? I think reasonable people can come up with something better than what we have now.

2. If a baby can't be supported by its family, it is societys problem of course. We should all happily share in the cost of that burden. I couldn't think of a better place for my tax dollars to go than helping out a mom trying her best to raise a baby she wanted to have.

[NicoleM]

130. I must disagree.

1. I could be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that in a lot of states, abortion on demand is illegal after the first trimester. That's why I mentioned my mom--under those circumstances, it would have been too late to do anything about it by the time she knew. Leaving aside the women who would deliberately wait to tell their partners until it was too late to have an abortion.

2. The flaw in your reasoning is that it is not that the baby can't be supported by its family, but that its family chooses not to support it.

I totally hear your frustration on this matter, and I don't think it's particularly "fair" to men either. But I believe that actions have consequences, and sometimes having sex leads to unintended pregnancy. That's just part of being an adult, being responsible for your actions. Abortion isn't an easy decision for most women. They may be "off the hook" WRT to childrearing, but there are still physical and emotional consequences to bear as a result of that action.

[Yupster]

135. Okay, amended answers then

1. If the timing is a concern, I'm willing to put a little bit of responsibility onto the woman. If you are sexually active, it is your responsibility to take a pregnancy test once every two months and if it comes up positive, make every effort to notify the man in a timely fashion. That would take care of your mom's problem. If the woman does not carry out her responsibility, it would relieve the man of his.

2. The man is not deciding whether or not to support his family. He is deciding who should be in his family. Just because a guy deposited sperm in a woman does not mean he wants that woman to be part of his family, much less a baby. By saying no to the obligation, he is saying he does not choose to make a family right now, not with this woman. That should certainly be his choice. Genes does not make a family. There are many wonderful families who share no genes in common at all. This should be especially clear to people at DU.

[NicoleM]

141. I guess we're going to have to

agree to disagree.

1. How are you going to legislate that? Are you going to make women of childbearing age go to a clinic every other month to get tested? What if she tests, it comes back positive, but tells you it was negative? Then a couple of months later, whaddya know, this one's positive? Or are the pregnancy test results reported to the man and not the woman?

2. I was that kid whose father decided he didn't want her. I know all about that. It sucks, hard. But it would have been easier if he had cared enough to send a check every once in a while. I would have been easier if we hadn't had to struggle our whole lives just to have the basics. So, from that perspective, I don't see why a man should not have to pay child support just because it's inconvenient for him. And I don't see why I as a tax payer should have to pay for your kid because it's inconvenient for you.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[NicoleM]

124. Wow yourself.

That was unbelievably rude.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[NicoleM]

138. Wow again.

You have no idea what my opinion is on the subject. My questions for Yupster had nothing to do with late-term abortion.

I am not sensitive about you talking about me as a fetus. I was one. I have one in me now. If you don't think I know that this baby inside me is more than an inanimate blob of tissue, well, what I have to say about that would probably get me banned, and you're not worth it.

What I am sensitive about is people just assuming they know what I think about something before they have even bothered to ask. THAT is what my so-called "outrage" was about. THAT is rude. Or stupid, which would you prefer?

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[NicoleM]

149. Ridiculous.

I'm sure there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of babies whose mothers woke up somewhere in their third trimester and decided they just didn't feel like it anymore.

:eyes:

Thanks for apologizing for completely misrepresenting my position on this matter when you had no idea what it was. Oh, wait, you didn't. Nevermind.

[Frodo]

175. LOL!

"I'm sure there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of babies whose mothers woke up somewhere in their third trimester and decided they just didn't feel like it anymore."

Just about every d@mn one of them! :-)

[in_cog_ni_to]

193. Their argument is so

bizarre! There's not a woman alive who would willingly have a late term abortion....that is just ridiculous and they know it. This is just a back door opening to overturn R v. W.

[calm_blue_ocean]

202. Roe v Wade and late term abortion

explicitly says that the government can restrict late term abortion. Furthermore, Roe v Wade says that government can do this because the government feels that the late term fetuses should have rights.

There is still a Roe V. Wade probl;em with the new law because there is no life or health of the pregnant woman exception. However, the basic idea of restricting late term abortions out of respect for fetal rights is very much a part of Roe v. Wade itself. Let me know if you need the pertinent language from the opinion.

[Yupster]

244. I saw somewhere that

less than 2 % of adopted kids live in poverty.

It sure seems that on threads like this adoption is given short notice.

[Clete]

247. That is because the thread isn't about adoption.

It's about a woman's right to end a pregnancy without interference from the government and, if need be, relatives. When you can spend nine months going through pregnancy and still happily want to give up the child that results to another woman, then you can say this.

[in_cog_ni_to]

137. That really was a rude remark.

you have no idea what her/his life was like without a father supporting him/her. I think you're on the wrong board. Go here....www.freerepublic.com.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[NicoleM]

156. Really?

I said that? Show me where. Maybe I wrote it in white font or something.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[NicoleM]

165. To quote Barbara Bush

"I'm through with you."

[in_cog_ni_to]

160. Ya,

there's just thousands and thousands of republican right to lifers clammering to adopt children born with deformities, abnormalities birth defects, black, hispanic...right, ok. As long as those babies are born WHITE and PERFECT then MAYBE they will be adopted. Do you have any idea how many children are in foster care? Do you have any idea of how many children there are who would give anything for a family to adopt them? If the repukes are so concerned about the children WHY are there millions without a family now? Give me a break.

Telling a woman what she can do with HER body.....is wrong....she's the one who has to carry it...not you.

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

283. I still haven't heard an answer to the question

My comment was not about NicloeM...I don't recall her saying she was ADOPTED. I'm talking about all the children who are eligible for adoption.


pro-lifers should be adopting 20 kids at a time if they're so concerned about the children and babies. I don't see that happening....we still have millions and millions of children waiting to be adopted. Before you start adding more of those babies to the adoption list, you should adopt the ones who exist.

For SOME reason, I never get a legitimate answer to that question.

On one hand, you want unwanted babies born....throw them into poverty....and take their welfare away from them and all the social programs put in place to help them.


Besides that, YOU have no right to tell another human being what to do with THEIR body.

[calm_blue_ocean]

307. What infants waiting for adoption?

Are you talking about non-infants?

Are you talking about infants from the Third World?

If you are talking about infants born in the US, then I don't believe you. Please provide a cite. I am interested because I may be interested in adopting in the mid-range future.

As far as whether any particular DU should have been put up for adoption, I cannot comment on that per the message board rules.

However, generally speaking, if an infants prospects for a happy life with her biological family look to be extremely poor, then the infant generally should be put up for adoption *as an infant.*

[in_cog_ni_to]

326. I am talking about

children who USE to be infants who are still waiting to be adopted. As long as they are available to be adopted then every pro-lifer needs to start adoption proceedings before they start preaching to women about putting more children into the system. This is NOT just an infant issue. Every child who wants to be adopted in the U.S.....use to be a baby. THEN, you have the possibility of the birth defects. Can pro-lifers predict that now? Do you know which woman is going to have a perfectly normal child? NO...you cannot. THEN what? What happens to THAT child that you insist be born?

>>>>>>>However, generally speaking, if an infants prospects for a happy life with her biological family look to be extremely poor, then the infant generally should be put up for adoption *as an infant.*<<<<

Who are YOU to dictate HOW old a child should be when put up for adoption from a poverty stricken home? My goodness. Now we're moving to dictating "when" a child who wasn't wanted anyway, should be placed up for adoption? Sheesh. I see this whole thing heading down a very slippery slope.

I happen to be one of those people who waited for 10 years to adopt a baby (but years later, blessed with my own son) and one never came to me. I would NEVER, even then, try to tell another woman that she should not have an abortion because I wanted to adopt a baby. Just because someone wishes to adopt, they don't have a right to tell a woman what she should do with her own body.

If you want a child, adopt a 12 year old who wants to be adopted.

[calm_blue_ocean]

328. If I adopt, I want an infant

Where are they?

Are there availibility problems currently. From what little reseach I have done on my own, the answer seems to be that there are availibility problems.

If I adopt, I don't want a twelve year old.

[in_cog_ni_to]

339. Well, I'd have to say that

availabilty is no different now than it was when I was trying to adopt. 1973-1983....at that point I just reconciled the fact I would not have children---gave up waiting. When I was put on the list there was already a 10 year waiting list or LONGER...back in 1973. I honestly don't think abortion has that much of a bearing on the issue. I think MONEY has a big influence on who gets babies and when. Look at all of the Hollywood crowd. They have the money it takes to get one immediately. $$$$ talks. Trying to tell women they can't have an abortion because you want a baby, just isn't right. I've been there. I know. I know the pain of wanting a baby and not having one. I know the pain of watching all of my friends have babies..I know the pain of having to go to a baby shower.....it was the most painful thing I've ever gone through, emotionally. However, I never once thought about dictating what another woman should do with her body.

>>>>>>>If I adopt, I don't want a twelve year old.<<<<<<

So, you don't REALLY care about those children who don't have a family. Yet, you feel justified supporting pro-life just because you want a baby?

[Tansy_Gold]

346. An instant family

I know this poster has been tombstoned, but I thought I'd throw this briefly into the mix anyway, because I've been so angry in so many other posts and my sanity needs a respite of calm and peace.

A woman who was in a class with me a couple years ago was in the process of trying to adopt. She and her husband, a teacher, had decided they would rather accept an already-born child than add to the existing surplus. They went through extensive screening, with no promises, for two or three years, during which they served as foster parents for Child Protective Services.

They wanted an infant, or at least a very small child. they preferred one without major health problems. When the call came, however, they were told the agency (govt) had not one but three children for them. Siblings in age from 6 to 10, removed from an abusive home in which the parental rights had been terminated. the children had some emotional problems but no serious behavioral problems, and the caseworkers believed that with patience and love, all could be overcome.

The adoptive parents had some misgivings. What if the emotional problems couldn't be overcome? what if there were other problems?

The mom finally had the answer. "there aren't any guarantees when you have the kids the usual way, so why should we expect guarantees with these? we wanted a child, now we have an instant family. Let's go get them."

[in_cog_ni_to]

349. That is a great story, Tansy _Gold

She's right. You have no guarantees with your own biological children and she's so lucky to have 3 kids to adopt! That's a blessing for those kids and her and her hubby!

I didn't know that the poster I was responding to has been tombstoned...dang, I wouldn't have wasted the post. :(

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. Nooooo.......

I think it depends on whether or not YOU had sex and a woman got pregnant. YOU made the decision to have sex. YOU took the "chance" that a pregnancy "could" happen. Period. That is the end of the man's involvement in the abortion issue. It stops there if a preganancy results.


>>>>>>Fairness to me would be to let the man opt out of parenting with plenty of time to allow the woman to make an informed decision on her pregnancy.<<<<<<<

Does "opt out" mean not support the child who came to be from YOUR sperm? Who suffers then? The baby. When you have sex you know darn good and well the possible consequences of it. "Opting out" of supporting YOUR child should not be an option. We have enough hungry babies in this country.

[Yupster]

118. The man would not be the one

who decided whether the baby was born or not.

That decision would be the woman's entirely - 100 %.

If she didn't feel she could support the baby on her own SHE shouldn't have had sex. SHE took the decision to have sex. SHE took the chance that a pregnancy could occur. Period.

You act like sex is rape and the woman has no say in the matter.

[in_cog_ni_to]

133. Ahem....

in MY biology classes I was taught that it took a man AND a woman to make babies. If a woman is preganant, my bets go to....there was a MAN involved. No man? No pregnancy....very simple. A pregnancy cannot be blamed on a woman alone.....that's just ridiculous for you to try. Period. Your previous post said you thought men should be able to "opt out" of parenting. "Parenting" means raising a child. A child should not suffer because you choose to "opt out" of your responsibility.

[Yupster]

158. What about a sperm bank?

That kinda just takes a woman's decision and a sperm donor doesn't it?

The man's just donating sperm - not anting to be a daddy. That's kind of how a one night stand is too.

[in_cog_ni_to]

168. Ummmmm....nooooo

can't agree with you there, either. If a woman goes to a sperm bank, she WANTS a baby. The donor is not responsible for the resulting child because it's part of the contract. The woman going to a sperm bank already knows, going in, that SHE will be the sole provider for that baby. Big difference, yupster. Nothing like a one night stand. A one night stand is a man AND a woman having sex, TOGETHER...one time. The risk of pregnancy is still there. Whether it's a one night stand or a hundred night stand. :7

[Tansy_Gold]

139. But the decision to support would be the man's -- 100%???

Okay, let's see, how does this work ---

they meet and are attracted.

he says, hey, i like you, you like me, let's have sex.

she says, what if i get pregnant?

he says, aren't you on the pill?

she says, yes, but what if it doesn't work? what if I get pregnant anyway?

he says, oh, well, i'll use a condom, too.

she says, but what if it breaks? what if i get pregnant?

he says, we'll worry about that if it happens. c'mon, honey, i'm really hot for you. . . .


three months later. . . .

she says, i'm pregnant.

he says, b-b-b-but you can't be.

she says, well, i am and you're the father.

he says, well, fine, but i'm not paying for this! get an abortion!

she says, but i thought. . . . .

he says, nope, no way am i paying support for some kid i didn't want. get rid of it.

she says, isn't this a decision we should both make? i mean, didn't we both make this baby?

he says, yeah, but you're makin' the decision to keep it. if you want it, you pay for it. . . . .

and he walks off into the sunset BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT THE BABY ANYWAY. . . .

The point here is that the guys who want to be able to veto an abortion are also the guys who don't want to have responsibility for child support. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

No pun intended, but no fucking way.

[Frodo]

171. So let me get this straight

You think that having sex has consequences and you think people should not be able to just have sex and not bear any responsibility for it later?

What if both people wanted to have sex and were immature about the possible cosequences (you conveniently spin it as the man wanting sex and the woman giving in but trying - oh so hard - to be responsible)? Pun intended.

[Tansy_Gold]

200. Well, it's a lot more difficult for a woman to have sex with

an unwilling man than vice versa.

And we aren't talking about women who want to opt out of their parenting responsibilities. the pregnant woman who doesn't want to be a mother usually opts for an abortion. Or adoption. Or she changes her mind after the birth and raises it. Her point of no return is at the moment of conception. Once she finds out she is pregnant she has to make a decision, and all of them involve responsibility and risk to both herself and the child. It doesn't make any difference if she engaged in informed consensual sex or not: she's pregnant and she has to deal with it.

What some people in this thread seem to be advocating is that men ought to be allowed lots of points of decision regarding their responsibility to the potential child. No one has ever said the women didn't have responsibility, no one ever said they should only engage in responsible sex. (Actually, they should, but often don't have the choice; men rarely don't have that choice.) But there appears to be a contingent here who thinks men, on the other hand, shouldn't be forced into accepting responsibility until, well, until they feel like it. And if even then they decide they don't want to be responsible, well, then they shouldn't be.

I don't agree. I think EVERYONE should engage only in responsible sex, because there are already enough unwanted children on the planet. but when women engage in sex -- responsible or otherwise -- biology places the risk of pregnancy solely on them. culturally and socially and legislatively we are trying to be "fair" by putting some of the responsibility, if only the financial portion of it, on the men from the same point of no return, i.e. conception.

If you don't want children, if you don't want a potential child to be aborted, if you don't want to have the burden of child support, if you don't want to worry that this woman isn't good enough to be the mother of your child, then don't have sex with her.

If you love her, or if you're just so freakin' hot to jump in her pants or your head (pun intended) will explode, then do so with the knowledge that you may have to take considerable responsibility for that moment's pleasure. Nature enforces that responsibility on the woman; surely a real man would be able to handle the responsibility willingly and without whining.

yeah, right.

[NicoleM]

234. That

was beautiful. :)

[Tansy_Gold]

242. Oh, thanks!

no icon for blushing.

[fla nocount]

60. I think in_cog_ni_to

is trying to cling to reality and rights today and steering clear of metaphysics.

Sometimes a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do. Her decision, her body, her head, her karma. If it's a wife he can divorce her and spare himself further outrage of his moral convictions....if he's bent that way.

[in_cog_ni_to]

65. How can you be a parent

when there is no child? If the woman has an abortion...no child. No child=no parent. JMCPO

[Selwynn]

145. totally irrelevant.

A father isn't a steward over the body of a woman. If they can't agree before they conceive on whether they want a baby or not, then its the woman's domain to make decisions over what happens with her body.

[fla nocount]

46. Only if her doctor is a man. n/t

*

[dsc]

47. Would you require me to spend my tax dollars on abortion?

If so why don't I get a say. Also women can be neither drafted nor serve in combat. Should they get a say in war issues?

[Clete]

55. For one thing women could be drafted and do serve in

combat. This is another one of those artificial barriers put up between men and women. As far as I can see women have no say so on war issues. Every soldier has a mother and most mothers do not want to see her child in harms way.

However, having a baby, is something a man can never do. He has no understanding of what a woman's reproductive system puts her through. He can never know anymore than a woman can know what his reproductive organs are doing to him. I don't see any laws covering vasectomies, circumcision or other strictly male procedures. If anyone wanted to make a law on it, I don't think the women should have any say so either.

[dsc]

72. and on the money question?

Do you or do you not expect all taxpayers to pay for abortion? On edit BTW women do not serve in combat but are banned from doing so under law. I don't think they should be but they are.

[Clete]

76. Your question doesn't make sense.

Who are all taxpayers and since when do all taxpayers pay for all abortions? What about war? Do all taxpayers pay for all wars even if they don't agree with them?

[dsc]

82. Yes we do

If money from the government goes to a particular purpose then all taxpayers should have a say. So one more time. Is it really your position that men should have to pay the bill for abortion but have no say at all in an issue of public policy? This isn't that hard. Are you asking me to help pay the bill but have no say at all in the bill? BTW I am currently without medical insurance so on top of everything else I get no medical care at all while being asked to do this.

[Clete]

89. You are the one for twisting an argument aren't you No one was

talking about taxes. It was about rights. If you don't want your taxes paying for this procedure then you should write your legislator that you don't want this, but you have no right saying a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy can't. I don't have medical insurance either. Join the widening crowd. This is what our legislators should be doing, getting health care for all instead of interfering in the private lives of citizens with fascist legislation, which is what reproductive legislation is all about, FACISM.

You should really be worried about how far they will go once they start getting away with these laws. They are only starting with picking on women with a divisive issue because it is polarizing. We are pickable. How long will it be before other matters are legislated that you have no say in. What if legislation comes around around that all males have to get vasectomies at a certain age, or maybe even get castrated because they are an underclass and we need them as workers, but we don't want them reproducing. Think about it.

[dsc]

94. I see still no answer

You want to deny a whole class of people any right to have an opinion on an issue of public policy. You may have meant something else but that is what you wrote. I think it is a fair question to ask if you intend that half to pay for abortions.

[Clete]

95. There is no answer.

Your statement doesn't say what you are objecting to. It's too vague.

[dsc]

103. Ok, Here you go

My point is that when men can get pregnant and spend nine months growing a baby in their bodies, then they can have a say in laws governing these matters.

The above is from your original post in this thread. One of the laws governing these matters would be public funding. So once again, is it your position that men should have to be taxed to pay for abortions but "have no say in laws governing these matters"? Is that specific enough for you?

[Clete]

109. It's still apples and oranges.

I was talking about interference from religiously backed, right wing male legislators in a woman's decision to end a pregnancy as contrary to you wondering about who is going to pay for that freedom from interference. If you think men shouldn't pay taxes for this then I have to guess your problem is paying for poor women on welfare to have an abortion. Most women do pay for their own.

In that case, do feel free to have your tax dollars raise that child for eighteen years instead. And, if you don't like to pay taxes then you'd better join the billionaire's club. I really do see your problem with not getting some benefit back from your tax money like affordable health care. I feel the same way.

But you seem to be saying that you back the legislation, or you want a vote in it, to end a woman's reproductive rights because you don't want to pay for it with your tax money. Maybe your right, Maybe those taxes that pay for reproductive procedures on women should be collected only from women, then men really wouldn't have a gripe, nor should they have a say.

[dsc]

174. Yes I would vote to pay those taxes

and I vote for levies for that all the time. But you are making a libertarian arguement (men shouldn't be telling women what to do) but then you want those very same men to pay the bill. I get to vote on welfare and schools etc. This is nothing short of taxation without representation. It is one thing to advocate on a personal level that men have no right to make that decision but quite another to say that a whole class of people have no right to vote on a public issue. That, no matter how you slice it, is what you said. That isn't fair. It isn't democracy.

[Clete]

189. Excuse me but I don't ever remember voting on a welfare

bill. It's something that was created in Washington by Congress and the White House and I know my taxes pay for it. Also, democracy since the ancient Greeks has been predominantly in the hands of men and still is today, so until the playing field is leveled I don't think a body of mostly conservative men has a right to pass a law against a medical procedure, which involves a woman's reproduction.

Now if you have a bitch about where your taxes go, write your politicians. It's an entirely separate issue so stop trying to pin them together. The next thing you'll be saying is that 9-11 and Saddam are connected.

[dsc]

196. Our county welfare department

has levies all the time. And I do get to vote for the politicians who instituted and still run the welfare program. Again, something entirely different is being advocated by the original poster.

[Yupster]

264. Many women are firmly against the state

being involved in this issue. Except when it comes to getting money from the dad. Then the state can't be tough enough.

[spooky3]

155. But you and I pay for many things in which we have no say.

For example, we pay high property taxes that pay for schools attended by other people's children, and we've had no say in who has these kids or how many they have. Our income taxes pay for kids on welfare.

[dsc]

166. You get to vote for the levies

or the school board which decides how much money is spent on schools. What she is proposing is that men have no vote at all on this issue of public policy.

[spooky3]

190. Splitting hairs and missing the point.

I can't vote on how many kids people have or how well they parent them. Yet i have to pay to help them defray the costs their kids incur, in schools, prisons, etc.

It is completely unrealistic to say that I could backdoor the issue by voting people out of office unless they refuse to spend a cent on welfare, prisons, or schools. You know that can't happen.

On issues on which I have a vote (such as levies) I have no real voice, because the majority of people have kids or had them at one time and will outvote those who do not, even when the levies are especially generous, because others directly benefit.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

182. Do you get to opt out of taxes that pay to administrate the death penalty?

[dsc]

187. No but I am not forbidden

from voting for legislators or on referenda on the death penalty both of which I would ve forbidden from doing in regards to abortion if the original poster had her way. If one losses in a democracy that is one thing. It is quite another to be literally forbidden from any participation in public debate and then be expected to pay for it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

194. You mean like the Iraq war?

[dsc]

260. Like it or not

we lost that debate. It isn't like we were fobidden to call or vote for or against the legislators who authorized it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

263. There was no debate but I would also caution that your argument

about your tax money going to support abortion is very similar to the argument that some use (including Ronald Reagan) to deny funding for treatment for aids...after all, the right wingers didn't want to see their tax dollars being spent saving the lives of sinners.

[Selwynn]

148. You also pay tax dollars for medical treatment of the poor... and no...

.. you should not have a say on whether you want to do that or not. Don't like it? Tough.

The argument that "I pay taxes on this so I should have a say in it" is irrelevant. It rests on the assumption that taxpaying = right to say in anything. That's simply not true.

[KFC]

56. Yes, of course

You should not deny a person a vote based on their sex. That is blatant discrimination. And mighty kooky.

[Clete]

62. There are some issues where a general vote isn't

really helpful and this is one of them. Until women have equal representation in law and elsewhere so their voice is heard, I don't think men should be able to interfere where they don't belong.

[rucky]

61. Personal Choice Means Between The Couple

Let them work it out. Each couple is different. I've already told my wife I'd have no say, but she would want my input. That's what respectful couples do.

[WoodrowFan]

67. agreed

I would expect my wife to listen to my opinion, but the final choice is HERS.

[Gman]

66. If they're married, yes

if not, no.

[WillyT]

69. NOPE !!! Other Than To Give Support To Whatever Decision The Woman Makes

In the event she decides TO TELL YOU...... of her pregnancy, or her decision....

Men should butt the hell out, and keep their opinions to themselves!

[Character Assassin]

105. And then show her the door if he doesn't agree.

Works out best for best parties that way, don't you think?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

181. Well at least it defines where he does have a choice

[Character Assassin]

191. Exactly my point.

If a woman were so shallow and callous as to tell me, rather than discuss things or go over options as a couple, that 'this is how it's going to be, end-of-report, you have no place in this decision', she'd be kicked to the curb so fast she might miscarry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

195. But then you would have comitted assault

[Character Assassin]

198. OK, 'placed' on the curb, cab fare in hand.

With a standing invitation not to return.

Either way, she'd be out the door and out of my life with a locksmith on the way over, pronto.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

203. There's nothing I appreciate more than a man who knows where his rights

begin and end :D The rest is a function of communication, something that requires two able brained adults. :hi:

[WillyT]

74. LOL !!! Ain't It 'Cute' How Many Men Here Feel They Should Have A Say ???

I wonder how many women here feel the same way!

:shrug:

[Lars39]

75. Like I said in another thread... when's the last time these guys had their

feet in the stirrups, getting scraped by a speculum?

[Northwind]

77. A different perspective

And a little something to think about, from the knee-jerkers on both sides here. The following is a true story as it happened to me when I was 20.

I was raised Roman Catholic. For most of my younger life I did not question the dogma the church hammered into me from my earliest years. I especially never questioned the church's stance on abortion. I remember being shown films of mutilated fetuses and the feeling of horror this engendered. I remember helping my brother pain a sign for a protest march at a local abortion clinic. he was older and was participating. I was too young and pouted because I did not get to go. As I grew older, I did begin to question the teachings of the church, eventually distancing myself considerably from the dogmatic expression of christianity. In all this time, however, abortion never entered my world, and if I probably never did question that, even if only because I did not consider it.

Flash forward, 1990. I am 20 years old. I am deeply (and stupidly, as it turn out) in love with a young woman of my same age. We are soon living together. Those who wish to judge me for “living in sin” may do so, I really do not care. We were, quite naturally, sexually active together, entirely monogamous, of course. We were responsible, and used birth control. Life seemed good.

Then one day, she (I will avoid using her name) got sick. She was ill all the time. Every day, it seemed, all day, she felt sick. So, naturally, she went to the doctor. I could not go with her, With her so ill, I was the only one working and we could ill afford to lose a days wages. When she came home that day, she said the doctor gave her something for her stomach, and told her she had a very serious stomach virus. I believed her. Why would I not? She said the doctor had told her she would be better in a couple of weeks at the most. I accepted this, and did my best to care for her as she needed. Then, one day, she got better. Very suddenly, she know longer felt sick all the time, although she was very tired for a while. But the fatigue passed and she was better, and things seemed all right again, except that she was preoccupied and seemed depressed a lot. She did not want to talk about it, so I dealt with it, hoping it would work itself out in the fullness of time.

A month later, I open my bank statement. The account was mine only, we did not have a joint account. In there I found a check, in the amount of about $500 (I do not recall the exact amount) made out to her mother. She had written, and signed my name to it. I knew nothing about it, and I asked her what it was for. She became very upset. She cried, and I just sat there confused. After a while, she started to tell me the tale. I am sure everyone has figured out that there was no “stomach virus”. She had been pregnant, of course. The $500 was to pay her mother back for paying cash for the abortion she got. She became pregnant with my child, and aborted my child, and I never knew until it was too late. When I think of this (and I do, often), my sentimental side imagines my child would have been a beautiful little girl. She would have been 13 this past August. But I never knew her. No one did.

The most painful part of this was the fact that all of this was done without my knowledge. Without my choice. I know what it means to have your choices taken from you. I may be a man, and therefore I do not believe the decision should have been all mine, but nor was I some one-nighter who took off, or some absentee boyfriend. I should have been told. I should have been included. In truth, if I had been told, I may have come to the same conclusions as she did. We were 20. We were not ready for parenthood. We certainly could not afford to raise a child. But I do not know what I would have done, not really, because no one let me have a say. No one let me have a choice. That is why I am pro-choice. Not because of an abstract moral argument, or because of a political agenda, or because someone told me I should be. I am pro-choice because I understand what it means when choice is taken away.

[Clete]

83. Certainly people who live together in whatever

capacity or who have a relationship shouldn't be kept in the dark about a pregnancy. Perhaps if you had discussed it first, you may have decided to marry, or you may have supported her decision to have an abortion if all the facts are out. This is really the way these decisions should be made, PRIVATELY, and among the people involved.

There is no way that strange men in chambers should be making these decisions and that is what happened in Congress yesterday. There are not enough women in Congress to provide equal representation, therefore the men should have no say until there is.

Your girlfriend and her mother were wrong to keep you in the dark.

[Dhalgren]

87. A man in any kind of relationship with a pregnant woman

can have all the opinions he wants, but the final "say" in the matter of "abort ot not abort" belongs to the woman. Period. It doesn't make any difference whether or not the man "should" have a say or not - he doesn't, end of story.
But I'm not sure how you could go about saying that only a person who could possibly experience a "thing" should be allowed to vote on issues touching that "thing". For instance, a man or a woman senator who was born sterile would not get a vote on any issues dealing with reproductive topic. A person born without hearing would not have a vote on issues dealing with a national symphony. The issue of reproductive rights effects me greatly, even though I am a man. I have a daughter and I want her to be assured of complete and total freedom regarding her dicisions on reproductive matters. If any woman in this country is not free, I am not free either - even though I don't have a utterus. So, yes and no to the vote thing - on a personal level, no, only the woman decides; on the national level, yes, duly elected officials of whatever sex gets to vote.

[Castilleja]

93. No, unless the woman asks for his opinion.

It is the woman's business only, no others need pry their way in. Simple as that. What stays within her, stays within her control.

[spooky3]

101. I have the perfect solution

All men who feel they are denied input unfairly should compete for women who have survived menopause. In fact, I think the Congress should start some legislation to force them to do so. No worries! :-)

Just a little levity on a serious topic.

[elperromagico]

102. None of my business

unless my wife/girlfriend asked me, in which case I'd say, "If you choose to have an abortion, you'll have my full support. If you don't, you'll have my full support."

It sounds wishy-washy, but it's her body and her choice.

[Cheswick2.0]

104. no

no apologies for that POV.

[rusk2003]

106. I think Men have a right and a obligation

to express their views and discuss it with there partners before a abortion is perforemd. Once his partner makes a decison then he should support it 100% and help in anyway he can. However I do not think that they should have a legal say in the matter. It is her body not anyone elses. Now maybe in a hundred or two years if babies are grown in some artificall tube or something. That would be a diffrent story then each would have a 50/50 say in the matter. But even though both are the parents the woman has to carry the baby for nine months so that gives them the power to choose to carry it full term or abort.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

110. No and No.

No.

[Blue-Jay]

121. Should we? I'd hope so.

but only on a personal level. Let me 'splain: I am 100% for a woman's right to choose. I'm not for restrictions on that right where adults are involved.

That being said, I don't like the idea of abortion. I'd hope that a woman carrying my child would do the honorable thing and consult me if she were thinking of having an abortion. I'd prefer raising a child by myself to having the fetus aborted, if the mother would agree to that.

Should there be legislation requiring that sort of thing? No.
Do I think a woman should inform the father prior to aborting? Yes.

Ultimately, no. It's not my choice. I'd still like to be involved, though.

[ibegurpard]

123. Only if he is the father

And even then, the ultimate say belongs to the person who has to carry the child inside her for nine months.

[LanternWaste]

126. Here I go, about to piss off 90% of all DU'ers

In 1993, I was living with a young lady and assumed from the way our relationship had been progressing over the past two years that we would be getting married sooner or later. No words to that effect had been spoken yet, but we were steadily travelling down that path.

We practiced safe sex but she got pregnant. I wasn't ready for beng a Dad yet, but I doubt most new Dad's never are. Six weeks later, she told me she had had a miscarriage. I was as supportive, empathic and kind to her as one could be, but deep in my heart, in the places I wouldn't let her see, I wept. I wept for a long time.

Time went on. We broke up as often happens and we each went our own way. By '96, I was seeing another young lady and things were working out wonderfully for us. We ran into my ex one evening at a book-reading which for some reason had quickly degenerated into a bunch of poeple dressed in black (goth? is that's what it's called...?). My ex was drunk. My own girlfriend was drunk. I was sober (I was driving).

Girlfriend says something to ex which sets ex off the deep end. Ex tells me in a drunken rage that there was no miscarriage. It was an abortion (scenes from Godfather II keep popping into my mind whenever I think about that).

Called me a week later to apologize and I asked her again if it was indeed, an abortion. She told me yes. Lots of reason. Lots of justifications. But I'm still angry at her to this day. She took our son/daughter away from me. And I'm not supposed to be angry or upset about that? I'm supposed to tell myself, "Oh well, it was only our offspring, but it was her body... so that makes everything all right."

I can't do that. It's not all right. And the fact that she kept that from me for so long is the major reason I'm glad we never got married. How could I allow myself to marry someone who thinks that descisions that affect both of us in the long run, choices that are by definition, "family matters" be kept from me? That I have zero input on not only our future but the future of our son/daughter. Not her son or daughter mind you, not my son or daughter mind you, but OUR son or daughter.

So I'm a knuckle-dragging, half-educated red-neck all of a sudden around here. I don't worry about that. I do worry about what our child may or may not have done on any particular day which would have brough joy into my heart. I do worry about never having the opportunity to cherish that child the way children should be cherished. Or celebrating his/her first Christmas or Easter. Or his/her first date. I lost that, too, ya'know

It did affect me and it still affects me. There are quiet evenings at home when I break down about this. Don't tell me it has nothing to do with me and expect me to believe it.

[Selwynn]

154. It's painful, its difficult - its also NOT YOUR CHOICE.

It would have been great if she'd been open about it. But ultimately, if you disagreed with her - guess what, its not your choice.

[LanternWaste]

172. Kind of a flippant answer to a tragedy, imo

The question was "should the man have a say in the utlimate descision?" rather than, "Is it the man's choice to have or not have an abortion?" I think those are two completely different questions. It's obviously not my choice. However, I think that I should have a say in it.

And flippantly saying, "Guess what, it's not your choice" regarding what I perceive to be a tragedy is in rather bad taste if you really think about about. Maybe the general concept of choice overshadows the personal affectations that result in these instances to a lot of people. Not to me. Not anymore.

I happen to believe that when people love each other, they disregard what one or the other wants in favor of what they both want. Compromise, by definition means both have a say regardless of the ultimate outcome.

But, again, I admit to being traditional and family-oriented rather than self-oriented in this matter.

[Selwynn]

177. Apologies if it sounded flippant - but your argument...

is that yes men should have a say in a womans choice over her body, and no.. they shouldn't.

Your situation is tragic, it doesn't change the fact that it's not your choice over another persons body. There is no way around the fact that in a just society, you don't get to demand that somone else do something with their body that they do not want to do. I'm sorry if that sounds hurtful because of your circumstances, but its the truth.

If you mean men should be free to give their opinion - you bet I agree! Men and woman should talk about it, dialoge, but open -- all the things that you wished for. But that's not "say." When it comes right down to it, if you feel one way and she feels another - its her body, not yours.

I do have sympathy for your story. But right and wrong are decided on emotion. Sometimes the right thing is also the difficult or complicated thing. Should you have been treated better through it? Probably... should you have the power to prevent a woman from choosing, which is what "SAY" is? NO.

[LanternWaste]

183. I don't absolutely "know" as you do, but my beliefs....

I believe an SO should have a say in his/her partner's choices. *Any* choices of *any* consequence. I'm afraid I must not understand what you define as "having a say". To me it means both partners carefully listening to the other and warranting them all due consideration.

Again, you don't seem to understand that I already realize that if a choice is made by the SO, there is nothing I can do about it legally. I realize that and accept it as fact. I comprehend that I cannot make a choice for another person any more than another person can make a choice for me. No one can in any given situation, no more than I can tell you what to think or what not to think.

If I decided to get a tattoo and my g/f disagreed with the position, then we would discuss it and hopefully reach an agreement. To me, that is what "having a say" means, regardless of the eventual outcoome (luckily for me, she talked me out it so many years ago and good for her, 'cause I'd feel like a elitist-boob if I had one now). Some SO's allow the partnership of the two to take priority over self, or the one. I think that's part and parcel of a solid foundation for any relationship.

This is merely my opinion. I don't consider myself wise enough to "absolutely know" what the right or wrong thing is as do you. Maybe I prioritize the "two shall be as one" part of a loving relationship more than I should....

On Edit and as an aside: Additionally, I don't believe that right and wrong are predicated on emotions, but then I happen to be what is derisively called (at least these days) as a moral absolutist.

[Selwynn]

199. This is how I define having a say:

1. You and the woman discuss the pregancy.
2. You want her to continue the pregancy
3. She does not want to contiune the pregancy
4. You cannot come to an agreement - all the talk about compromise and mutual understand is fine and dandy, but it doesn't always work that way.

If you are in this situation, you should not, under _ANY CIRCUMSTANCES_ have the right to supercede YOUR wishes over the wishes of the woman. If she continues to believe an abortion is the best choice for her, whether you agree or not is irrelevant.

That's what I mean when I say ultimately, a man should not have a say. I mean that no other human being on the face of the earth should be able to interfere in her medical choices about her life and body. A "significant other" is still an "other" no matter how romantically you want to look at it. There is NOTHING that should supercede the right of an individual person to make medical decisions over their own bodies. Period. Ever.


If I decided to get a tattoo and my g/f disagreed with the position, then we would discuss it and hopefully reach an agreement.

Making medical decisions about your own body and getting a tatoo are so completely not even close to the same thing its not even funny. And here's the more important question, what if you can't agree?

It sounds like you're answer to that question is constantly "oh, we would have." That's great, but what if you didn't? Then what?

Point blank question time: do you believe that your SO wanted to have an abortion and you did not want her to have an abortion you should be able to keep her from making medical decisions about her body? Yes or No.

[LanternWaste]

216. To be perfectly honest, I do not know...

To be perfectly honest, I do not know what my reactions or my actions would or would not be. I like to tell myself that these days, I'm a little better in deciding not to accept the "love" of someone who would corner me into making a descision like that.

All I can say is that the wishes of both people in a loving relationship supercede the wishes of one person in the same relationship. If one person's fundamentally life-changing choice takes priority to him/her over what they *both* wish, it's not really a loving relationship in my opinion.


Hypothetical questions are usually lost on me as I'm one of the dumb people who can't definitively state what I would or would not do in any given situation; I can only *hope* what would or would not happen. And I hope I wouldn't allow myself into a relationship where her choices take precedence over *our* choices.

All other things being equal, I believe the choices the two make together outweigh any choices the one makes on his/her own.

I hope I'm not being too obtuse about this. I just can't fathom being in a relationship where, "it's got nothing to do with you, so butt-out", or "it's not your choice to make" comes up again.

West Wing comes on in ten minutes so I'll have time to read any reply you make, but not time enough to respond myself..., I'm just not the best typer...lol. I'd have absolutely no problem with you IM'ing (PM'ing?...)me re: my opinions about this or resuming the thread tomorrow a.m. Thanks for giving me a lot to think about and I will give your words all due considerations. Hope to talk again soon!

[Selwynn]

231. You're missing the point.

All I can say is that the wishes of both people in a loving relationship supercede the wishes of one person in the same relationship. If one person's fundamentally life-changing choice takes priority to him/her over what they *both* wish, it's not really a loving relationship in my opinion.


That's great man, and in any other context I'd be RIGHT THERE WITH YOU dreaming and talking wistfully about the joy of love and committed relationships, I promise you. But you are DODGING THE QUESTION.

In the real world, not every relationship in which a man and a woman conceive is a loving committed one where they will agree on what should be done. You say you hope you are not being obtuse about this. With all due respect (and I think I like you, so I mean that) you really are. Are you not aware that not every man and woman who conceive are in situations where they will want to make these loving, hand holding, throw rose petals around the living room, together kind of decisions? It happens all the time.

In that situation, should the father be able to overrule the mother on medical decisions about her own body? That's the question...

Like I said, I mean no disrespect. I think I like you and if this issue wasn't so close to home for me, I would take the time to reflect with you on the joys of committed passionate love relationships and how much they are desparately needed in society. But there are certain things that I believe or irresolutely true. And one is, a human being should not be able to force a medical decision on another human being. The medical decision is a personal private matter for the indivdual woman alone. If an agreement cannot be reached, you may be right - it may have never been a real loving relationship to being with. But the fact still remains, if an agreement cannot be reached then the decision over the body lies with the person who's body it is.

I like West Wing too friend, although in my time zone I have an hour - and this season without Sorkin seems weak to me (cry). If you want to continue in PM or here, that'd be great. If you don't, that's ok too.

[LanternWaste]

245. We've gone all over the place on this convo. Anyway...

I honestly don't think I'm dodging the question. The question being (as far as I know...):

"do you believe that your SO wanted to have an abortion and you did not want her to have an abortion you should be able to keep her from making medical decisions about her body? Yes or No".

My answer is "absolutely not". I know that I cannot prevent anyone from making descisions about their body and I've acknowledged that that I cannot. Whether I'd want to or not is beside the point as we both know it's impossible for me to legally impose my will in that type of situation. Since I'd never physically/emotionally abuse or coerce her into accepting my will, I cannot perceive any scenario in which I *could* keep her from doing anything. Again, I've ackowledged and accepted that point.

So I both realize and accept that I cannot *force* my SO into *any* choice or procedure, medical or otherwise. So the answer to the question quoted above is absolutely "No". However... I think it's absolutely "No" for *all* couples (abused spouses aside). Even if I could impose my will on her by mandate of some bizarre law, I still wouldn't be able to guarantee that my will was followed any more than she could *force* me to do one thing or another.

Yet, I still maintain that I should and would have a say in a descision of that magnitude which holds such powerful consequences for both partners regardless of whether the decision is to keep or abort. I'm still idealistic enough to still believe (even at my age... :eyes: ) that fundamentally life-altering decisions are to be made by the couple rather than the individual.

It's not an issue I vote on one way or the other and I'm never running for public office, so it's not as if my opinion is anything other than an opinion. And it certainly won't affect anyone beside me and my SO (who knew ahead of time my opinions about it to allow her the chance to walk away from the relationship and preempt any ugly scenes). And I've been pretty lucky in that regard. What you call "rose-petal throwing and hand holding" is precisely what my girlfriend/fiancee have been in since 1998. To me, *that* is the reality and the other couples aren't as... well, whatever.

I understand that you feel I'm absolutely wrong; and I actually value these kinds of non-inflammatory discussions (I haven't read the entire thread, mind you- I'm simply referring to the pow-wow you and I are engaged in). It allows me greater opportunity to re-examine my own opinions and ideas about various topics. Yet I still haven't found any basic arguments in our convo which instructs the critical voices in my mind and my soul to alert me that I'm wrong.

As an aside: I don't think West Wing's gotten too much weaker this season. The only real validation I can see of Sorkin's abscense is the lack of the quick-paced, long, no-cuts-for-40-seconds, follow-the-scene's-lead-around using the handheld shots that Sorkin used to great effect (better on Sports Night, but again, that's just my opinion and since I don't vote for my candidates based on this issue or plan on running for public office, it doesn't make too much of a difference ;) ....).

My last post for the night and thanks for giving me a lot to think about. I'll try to check back on the thread tomorrow, but no promises as I have a second interview for a job during mid-morning and will hopefully be away from my PC smooching some serious corporate behind. :puke:

[Selwynn]

257. I got it - thanks for the response.

I don't believe you are absolutely wrong, if I understand you right. I understand you to be saying, "if it came right down to it, no I don't believe I should be able to overrule a women in making a medical decision about her own body, HOWEVER, in a committed relationship based on love and trust I believe I absolutely deserve to be included in the decision making process, to discuss it with the other person, talk about it, try to come to a mutual decision made in unity."

If that is what you're saying, I couldn't agree more strongly my friend. Sorry if I incorrectly said you were dodging the question. It looks like I might have done that. If I'm putting words into your mouth, I apologize, but I think that's what you're saying, and I agree.

PS - I think the writing in West Wing this season is weaker. Like tonights episode - very good, but I can't help thinking that if it had been done last year, it would have been GRRRRRR-reat! :)

[Tansy_Gold]

228. Since there have been two similar stories from the male POV. . .

. . .allow me to present one from the female.

In the late 1960s, before Roe v Wade, I was living with a long-term boyfriend. Quite scandalous in my traditional family, so my parents were unaware of the details of our living arrangement.

Although he and I had been involved for a considerable length of time, we had had our rocky spells. And I knew that he had been in another long-term relationship that had broken off a year or so before he met me. He was 24, I was 19.

Contraception was my responsibility and I was religious about it. Even so, there came a time when I suspected the pills (this was the late 60s, remember; they weren't foolproof) had failed and I was pregnant.

The very last person I considered telling was the boyfriend. Instead, I contacted some trusted girlfriends to find out what options I had. They had contacts that could, if I chose to do so, would procure me an illegal but reasonably safe abortion.

First I had to find out for sure if I was pregnant. As it turned out, I wasn't -- and with 30-years of hindsight I'm sure now that the dosage of the pill was simply too high for me. but had I been, I would have gotten the abortion and not told him.

Months later, he discovered through a mutual acquaintance what had happened. He confronted me with my actions, with the decision I would have made. he asked me why, when I claimed to love him so much, would I have aborted and not even have told him?

"Because it had to be my decision. Regardless what YOU think of our relationship or what YOU think *I* think of our relationship, I didn't completely trust you. The only person I could really rely on was myself." Of course, he was outraged. It was *his* child, after all, even though there hadn't been one. but when I asked him if he would marry me, then and there, without the baby, his hesitation told me all I needed to know. The very fact that he was outraged, instead of sympathetic, told me everything. It was all about him and the baby -- and never about me.

Many years later, after I was married (to someone else, thank goodness!!!) and had two small children, I thought I was pregnant again. I'd have been like my friend who had three children in 2 and a half years and almost died during the third one, except that I was far more healthy than she. but we hadn't wanted any more children after our second was born, so my husband had a vasectomy. And I hadn't been having sex with anyone else. Had the vasectomy not worked? Had something gone wrong? Or was there something else wrong with me?

This time there was no question -- I immediately consulted my husband. Financially, emotionally, in every possible way we did not want another child, and we had taken steps to prevent having any more. But something still was wrong.

I consulted our family physician and he ordered some tests. Should the tests show that I was indeed pregnant, he would arrange to have it terminated if we so wished. We had two children we dearly loved and the thought of terminating a third was painful, but we knew there was simply no other choice.

Again, it turned out to be a false alarm -- I was merely hypothyroid.

But when I compared the two experiences, especially in light of the present discussion, I realized more clearly than ever that it is not the POV of the sperm donor that matters, even in evaluating the relationship. It is the POV of the mother. Maybe the two young women who aborted just didn't quite trust their partners to stand by them, or maybe they didn't trust their commitment. or maybe they had had friends who had gotten pregnant and the guys even married them, but the commitment didn't last. or maybe they knew that deep down the only person whose decision mattered was their own.

Y'know, we've all been hurt in life. We've lost parents or loved ones, had lovers cheat on us and walk out on us, had spouses betray us and business partners steal the shit from us. There's no legislation that can prevent that.

the legislation that separates abortion rights from parental support duties attempts to make responsibility fairly distributed -- the minute you start having sex, you create a responsibility to the child after it's born. You can't escape that; it's inherent in the risk. But the right to obtain the abortion inheres only to the one carrying the pregnancy. So does the right to inform the other party.

If you have the choice whether or not to have sex with the woman, and you have any doubts about wanting her to be the mother of your child, don't have sex with her. I mean, c'mon, why would you want -- WANT -- to have sex with someone you didn't have enough affection and respect for to be the mother of your child?

Eeeeiuw, don't answer that.

[Selwynn]

233. Thank you for sharing that perspective.. as a man.....

there's only so much I can do to try to express it.. :)

[LanternWaste]

249. Thanks for writing that

Thanks for writing that. In such an emotionally charged atmosphere that tpoics like this can create, it's difficult to seperate the emotion from the action. Difficult to seperate the morale from the legal.

And *very* difficult to seperate the Wrong from the Right. Sometimes I don't know when (or how) the practical applications end and when the visceral and the idealism begins.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for your input. Your words are sounding in my heart and your perspective is valuable to me.

P.S. I'm very happy that you are with someone that you have complete trust in. I think that's most important.

[Selwynn]

258. You're an interesting fellow...

Which I mean as a compliment...

I'll watch your posting with great interest. A belated welcome to the party, from me.

[LeahMira]

127. How about...

... a vote, but not a veto.

[Triana]

128. Nope...

Absolutely not - until THEY can get pregnant, that is.

[phillybri]

129. No...Period...

NO

[Character Assassin]

132. And yet pro-choice female politicians can also be pro-WOD

The utter hypocrisy of which has never bothered Diane Feinstein...

[Selwynn]

157. IDIOT ALERT: What is WOD?

[Character Assassin]

162. The War on Drugs. It's the modern day fount of most political hypocrisy.

And many female politicians drink from it far too often.

[bleedingheart]

184. as a mother I think the WOD issue is one of those things

that some mothers see as an "extra helper"... never mind that perhaps keeping an eye on your youngsters and setting limits would help keep them away from drugs..oh and just plain luck...

I know many women who aren't keen on the Drug Wars but they worry about their kids.....so in that case they view WOD as a good thing.

Personally I think the WOD is useless and wastes more money that could be spent on early education program, more hot lunches, breakfasts and dinners for kids who really need help.

[LalahLand]

151. NO. Best bet is to "strap up" to avoid any misunderstandings n/t

[bleedingheart]

180. Only if we can give them the hemorrhoids, bladder problems, high blood

pressure, swollen feet, distended stomachs, EXTREMELY tender breasts that hurt when you put a bra on, the zits, the hormonal upswings and downswings, the complications like bleeding, heart problems, kidney problems, ...etc...

I wanted my kids... I love my kids but I can tell you that to go through that experience without wanting that baby would be torture...

and last but not least REMEMBER...this is the 21st century... we do have birth control available...a decision about an unwanted pregnancy can be avoided using some common sense.

[onebigbadwulf]

188. Yes and No

Men should NOT have the right to force a woman to carry the baby to term. A woman should be able to terminate the fetus any time before it would be able to live as a non-parasite (IE as a baby).

However, if the man wants no part in the birthing, raising, and paying of the child... he should have that choice up until the point the child is able to live as a non-parasite (IE as a baby).

Example 1- I knock my Girlfriend up, she wants an abortion. I shouldn't be able to stop her.


Example 2- I knock my Girlfriend up, she wants to keep it.. I should be able to sign a paper that says I give up all responsibilities and charges that incur becuase of the child that will be born. But I should only be able to sign this slip before the 3rd trimester.



(in other words- you should not be able to force someone to be a parent)

[LibertyorDeath]

197. Well if WE got pregnant Yes WE then yes I'm obligated by law to

provide support to this child. Then yes I should have input

Ultimately it's your body but unless it was an immaculate conception

it's OUR child.

[Selwynn]

204. You don't get to force another human being to make medical..

..choices about their own bodies, I don't give a flying fuck who you are, or what you stuck into them, and what the results of that happen to be.

[whirlygigspin]

217. what a stupid question

personal issues have no place in public policy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

220. OK but only if you agree to die along with her if she experiences

complications...fair enough?

[David Zephyr]

226. Men Should Have No Legal "Say" Regarding a Woman's Reproductive Rights.

I'm with you, Clete, but I'm sure you already know that.

[sistersofmercy]

227. No No No No NOOOOOOOO! and heck NO!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

230. The whole question is sexist the way you frame it.

A non-sexist question would be:

Should any person be forced to become a parent, with all the obligations that entails?

It is a simple matter of choice vs anti-choice.

If you think someone should have a choice, then you should agree that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion, and that a man should be allowed to refuse to accept financial obligations to the child.

If you are anti-choice, then you should agree that a man should be forced to accept financial obligations to the child, while the woman should be forced to give birth to it.

A little proviso though. The man should have to file that he refuses to take responsibility for the child within the time period available to the mother for an abortion. In other words, he can't accept a child and then after it is born decide he no longer wishes to pay child support.

I am pro-choice for both sexes.

[spooky3]

235. Why don't you read the other posts here?

Many of them challenge the views you have expressed.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

237. And many of them are patently wrong and sexist.

To force ANYONE to have a child is wrong, and should not occur, whether they be male or female.

[spooky3]

238. Sorry, issues that are based on real, physiological differences

between men and women can legitimately result in different positions on the roles of men and women. You are being patently unfair to label people as sexist. I'm not going to debate it further with you.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

312. But a woman can renounce her financial obligations to the child...

so why not men? That my friend is sexism, whether you want to admit it or not. Women have an "out" every step of the way. They can refuse to have sex, they can abort the baby, and they can adopt out the baby once it is born.

Men on the other hand have only the first choice, refuse to have sex.

I propose that men should be given the choice to accept or reject the baby before it is born, and thereby renounce their obligations to the child. At that point the woman can either abort the baby, or adopt the baby out once it is born, and thus have the same rights as the man in terms of financial obligations.

She does get one extra right though: the right to abort the baby regardless of the fathers wishes.

[NicoleM]

240. Is there some huge epidemic

of women raping men that I'm not aware of? Because that's what a lot of these posts sound like--that the man NEVER had a choice in the matter. If you voluntarily put your sperm where it can fertilize a woman's egg, then you've already made your choice.

[Tansy_Gold]

243. Bingo!

:D

[Yupster]

261. And the same should go for the woman

If you voluntarily let sperm be put into you, then you've made your choice.

An awful lot of people here have in my opinion a very sexist outlook on this situation.

If a man voluntarily puts his sperm into a woman, he's made his choice,

but,

if a woman voluntarily allows spern to be put into her, then she will have some choices to decide between.

Couldn't be more sexist. What ever happened to feminists who wanted equal rights for everyone?

Now it's become

Pro choice for women
Men - you made your choice - live with it.

Girls Rule
Boys Drool hu, huh, hu

[Devils Advocate NZ]

315. So abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape?

After all, if you voluntarily put your egg where it can be fertilised by a man's sperm, then you've already made your choice!

Or are you being hypocritical by saying that only MEN should be forced to face the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?

Don't forget adoption though! That should be illegal too, becuase once you decide to give birth, you should be obligated to raise the child and support it financially! Or, once again, are only MEN to be forced to face such obligations?

[Tansy_Gold]

265. Can you explain to me how it would be possible to force. . . .

. . . . a man to have a child?

There is a HUGE difference between "having" a child and "sharing financial responsibility for a child."

Men who father children are under current law generally held financially responsible for part -- only part -- of their raising. They are not forced to give birth to the children, and they are not forced to raise them against their will. They don't have to sit up nights and clean up puke, they don't have to worry about the schoolyard bully, they don't have to worry about the first time out with the car.

Assuming the man consented to the sex in the first place, he consented to the responsibility for whatever happens as a result. Suppose he promises that night (or afternoon, whatever) that he'll provide for the child, but then a couple months later he changes his mind. Well, sorry, fellas, but it's too late for the pregnant woman to just "change her mind." She's pregnant. There's no changing her mind about that.

Oh, well, if she doesn't want to support it by herself -- she didn't conceive it by herself -- then she should just blithely get an abortion. But by the same token, if she doesn't want it and he does, he should have the right to veto her abortion?

Guys, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO.

Responsibility for at least the financial aspects of child raising begins the second you insert your you-know-what into her you-know what. the best of intentions can go sour. The relationship can break up -- or the condom can break. Either way, you gotta take responsibility for your actions AND QUIT MAKING THE WOMAN RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING, but not giving her the power to make her own choices.

There aren't any do-overs in pregnancy.

[Yupster]

271. Well suppose he doesn't

promise to provide for the child.

Suppose he says in his drunken state that he doesn't even want to know the woman's name. He just wants to have sex. And suppose she, in her drunken state says, okay.

Then he should still be burdened to send a check to the woman for the next 18 years?

That doesn't sound like pro-choice to me.

[Tansy_Gold]

276. Should he still be burdened for 18 years?

Damn right he should.

He accepted that responsibility the minute he had sex with her. I don't give a shit if he was drunk and just wanted to have sex. I don't give a shit if she was drunk and just wanted to have sex. This whole discussion is nothing more than trying to get men off the hook completely if and when they want to be off the hook. I'm saying no, no opting out. You put it in, you live with the results.

I think what sticks in my feminist craw more than anything else is this sense some men have that they're getting stuck with ALL the frickin' responsibility of raising the kid. They aren't. They're being asked -- firmly and with some nudging from the law -- to take responsibility for their action, for the action of having sex with a woman and getting her pregnant.

No one is saying the woman is off the hook. Once she's pregnant, she's responsible -- either for obtaining an abortion, arranging for an adoption, or keeping the child. No matter what, she has to make decisions and live with them, and live a lifetime with them, along with all the responsibilities.

What you want is an easy out. "Oh, hey, I just wanted to sleep with you, or not even sleep with you, just fuck your brains out for a coupla hours. Sorry you got knocked up, but I'm really not interested in paying for the brat. So why don't you just get yourself scraped out, okay? And if not, well, hey, it's not MY fault you're gonna have to raise the little bastard."

You want mutual consent, but you don't really want mutual responsibility. You want men to have the freedom to opt out at any time with no thought to the possible consequences. Cost of the abortion? Oh, sorry, she consented, so that's her responsibility. time off work to recover from the abortion and lost wages? Oh, she consented, sorry, that's her responsibility. Too bad. No insurance and she can't afford the abortion? Oh, she should have thought about that before she consented to have sex. Her responsibility, not yours, no no, no way.

the only thing you're concerned about is your damned checkbook. You don't give a flying fuck about this woman or any other. Heaven forbid that you should be held responsible for ANYTHING you do.

You invest in the stock market and your stock goes down. "Oh, Mr. Broker-Man, can I do that one over? I didn't really MEAN to buy that stock. I didn't know it would go down in value."

You're playing golf with the boss and you're trying to impress him so you'll get that promotion. "Oh, Mr. Boss-Man, can I do that tee shot over? I didn't really MEAN to slice it off into the rough. . . . "

You just couldn't resist buying the Ferrari and pushing it up to, well, whatever it is that Ferraris will do these days. "Oh, Mr. Police-Man, can i do that last ten miles over? I didn't really MEAN to go 120 in a 65 zone and run all those stop signs. . . . "

The problem with the distinction between parental support obligations and rights to abortion is that SOME men just can't stand the notion that women will have control over something that men don't and can't have control over. For generations and generations, men have had all the control. Even now they have most of the political control in this country, most of the financial control, most of the employement control, most of the medical control, most of the economic control. Historically they have had direct and overt control over the women in their lives to a much, much greater extent than women have had indirect and covert control over the men in their lives.

Until the 1970s, a man was entitled to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted it, no matter what her wishes were. She could not accuse him of rape; the concept simply did not exist. She could not refuse to have sex with him, not even on the grounds of the risk of a pregnancy that could kill her. When the first marital rape case gained publicity, one California assemblyman said, and I may not be quoting him absolutely accurately, "My God, if we can't rape our wives, who can we rape?"

Sex -- with or without responsibility -- has long been taken as a god-given right for men in this country. What equal rights now means, at least in my book, is that women have the equal right to demand men take responsibility for their actions. Women have always been the ones burdened with the children. It didn't begin with Tom Jefferson and Sally Hemings. But now you want us to have ALL the responsibility and you have ALL the right to freedom, to opt out AFTER THE FACT. that's not equality, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Your responsibility -- and hers -- is to the CHILD. I know you just can't bear the thought that she's in control of your destiny for just a little while. you can't stand that loss of absolute power. Will she abort and let you off the hook, or hold you to the unspoken bargain? Because if she decides she wants that baby, it's still the product of your voluntary sexual activity. You can't just "opt out" and drop that little fling down the memory hole. You done the deed, mister, and you gots to pay the price.

She's already paying. She'll have the largest portion of the expense and the labor and the sweat and worry of raising that kid. All you gotta do is write that check. And you don't even want to do that much. You just want to be able fuck 'em and forget 'em. Rape 'em and scrape 'em and go on to the next.

Like I said, Yupster, there's no do-overs in pregnancy.

But talkin' to you is like talkin' to a stag in rut. You got only one thing on your mind, and it ain't between your ears.

[Booberdawg]

277. God DAMN that's the best rant I think I've EVER SEEN!!!!!

You *GO* girlfriend!!! You hit every point right on the money!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Yupster]

278. I think I understand your anger

Once a man gets a woman pregnant, she should decide between her available options of having the baby, or aborting it.

Once a man gets a woman pregnant, he should shut up and do whatever the woman tells him to.


Abortion: There ain't going to be any baby. Just shut the fuck up.

Keep the baby: You're going to be a dad. Shut the fuck up and write me a check every damn month for the next 18 years. In fact, forget the checks. I'll just take it right out of your paycheck.


And this inequity is somehow justified because men have held power through most of the ages, so it's about time men see what it's like to have a woman in control of their destiny for 18 years. Learn what it feels like you, you, you, MAN!

Stag in rut. LOL.

I'm a middle aged stock-broker who's been married forever with one kid. Have one beer every three years. Never smoked. Never did drugs. Never cheated on my wife. Never had a one-night stand even when single in college. And now I'm a stag in rut. LOL. If you do a sport, I hope it's not archery.

I just don't like inequity, and this current system is unfair to men. It has never effected me, and probably never will, but it is still not fair, and needs to be changed.

I also don't like punishing men because of what Thomas Jefferson did to Sally Hemmings, and wouldn't want to punish women for what Delilah did to Samson either.

But anyway, thanks for the insult, though it really didn't sting too much seeing as the circumstances that I find myself in. A stag in rut
might be exciting for us if we could maybe get grandma to take the kiddo for a weekend and we could get to the Caribbean for a few days. With my job (I own a one-man business)and kiddoe's school, we really haven't had much excitement in our lives the last few years. Our vacation this year was to Legoland. That's where studs like me like to go party. LOL.

[Isome]

279. Inequity? Get outta' town!!

Don't worry about inequity. It's a statistical fact that after divorce, it's the woman and her children whose income falls below the poverty line. Those living below the poverty line and/or on welfare are overwhelmingly single women with children.

That's where you can find "inequity".

That's where you find the "inequity" that happens to women who bore children by men who "opted out".

Even when child support is ordered, most men aren't paying enough child support that allows a woman to get rich, by any stretch of the imagination. If, generally speaking, that were the case you wouldn't find so many single women and their children living in poverty. There are exceptions to every rule, but in the majority of cases, having a child whose father isn't interested in being a father, or any kind of helpmate to his child's mother, isn't going to put a woman on the path to living large & in charge.

IMO, objections over a woman having the final say in bringing a pregnancy to term is more about a loss of control (and a smidgen of resentment thrown into the mix) more than anything else, including "inequity".

...and I think someone said that already, so I'm just seconding that motion!

[Muddleoftheroad]

289. You are mixing issues

Men who ARE responsible for children should pay. But you want a blanket rule making all men responsible no matter what the woman chooses. That is ridiculous.

You can make all the decisions you want about having or not having the child, just don't expect us to pay if we don't want the child.

I know one friend of mine who, unhappy with her prospects of marriage, is thinking of getting pregnant on her own. If a man does that he can be trapped into 18 years or more of financial commitment, all because SHE decides.

Nope, one way or another this will change.

[Isome]

337. No, I'm responding to the charge of inequity.

It's inequitable to allow a man to have the final say over a woman's body while pregnant -- while the fetus is in utero and wholly dependant on the woman's body to grow into a baby. It's absolutely equitable to hold both parents financially responsible for a child that is born.

That is where you, and those holding the same argument, are mixing issues.

[Muddleoftheroad]

348. Not at all

The woman has the say over whether that child is born AND over whether she chooses to raise it. If the man can't decide whether the child is born, she should at least have the same option to be or not be a parent and that includes the financial obligations.

[Isome]

373. Mixing Issues - as you are wont to project onto others

The financial obligation is imposed, or enforced by the government. No one wants the responsibility of financially supporting a man's child(ren), simply because he's so self-absorbed and concerned with his "wallet", that he 'opts out' of the picture.

A woman can want & need the financial assistance for the child they created together (and that she alone choose to carry to term), nonetheless, only the state can force the father to be financially accountable. The father, as is not unusual, is always able to stall, whine, cry, fight, kick, scream, and pout about it for the next 18 years. Until the whiners, criers, pouters, et al stop long enough to galvanize a group to change the law, the man will be forced, by the state, to financially support the children they help to create.

I hear Promise Keepers calling, they might be calling for more muddles...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

319. The woman doesn't have to live with it at all!

What a load of bullshit. The sexism in your post is astounding. You say men should be FORCED to accept responsibility for "putting it in", yet you DEMAND that women should not have to bear ANY responsibility for taking it, to be just as crude as you.

You point out a woman can abort or adopt and thus all along the process can abdicate her responsibilties for getting pregnant, but you, in your sexist mindset, DEMAND that men pay the price for the act of sex?

Are you one of those feminists that consider ALL forms of sex, even consensual, to be rape? You sure sound like it. Feminists like you make me sick. You demand equality on the one hand, but then demand inequality on the other. You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.


Sex -- with or without responsibility -- has long been taken as a god-given right for men in this country. What equal rights now means, at least in my book, is that women have the equal right to demand men take responsibility for their actions. Women have always been the ones burdened with the children. It didn't begin with Tom Jefferson and Sally Hemings. But now you want us to have ALL the responsibility and you have ALL the right to freedom, to opt out AFTER THE FACT. that's not equality, not by any stretch of the imagination.

No, it is the women who are opting out after the fact. They can get an abortion or adopt the baby out. All men like me are asking for is a little equality.

Your responsibility -- and hers -- is to the CHILD.

Is it? Then why can a woman abort the baby? Why can a woman adopt it out? Doesn't sound like she is taking any responsibility to the child to me... Of course, I'm not sexist.

She's already paying. She'll have the largest portion of the expense and the labor and the sweat and worry of raising that kid. All you gotta do is write that check. And you don't even want to do that much. You just want to be able fuck 'em and forget 'em. Rape 'em and scrape 'em and go on to the next.

Uh huh. Thought so. Sex is Rape! Sex is Rape! A woman is so weak she can't decide for herself to have sex and therefore she should not have to face the consequences of it! But a MAN! He is the filthy bastard that had sex with her, and thus he should be made to pay regardless!

Yes, you are a hypocritical sexist that thinks all men are pigs, and that women are so weak that they should never have to face the consequences of their actions.

Pathetic.

[Selwynn]

345. Will you marry me? Or at least let me worship at your feet?

Best. Rant. Ever.

[Booberdawg]

350. ROTFL!!!

My compliments on your excellent taste! :toast:

[Tansy_Gold]

353. ROFLMAO!

Already married, sorry. But you may worship at my feet any time, so long as you don't make me wear shoes. I HATE shoes.

To anyone else who decides to read this, truth is, yes, I'm a militant feminist and damn proud of it. But I don't hate men, and I don't like women who play the helpless victim role. Women have to take charge of their lives, including their sex lives.

But, hey, look at what the world, run almost exclusively by men, does to women on a daily basis.

The only occupations in which women are paid more than men for equivalent labor are prostitution and fashion modeling.

Female genital mutilation is still practiced in many countries, and it is usually justified and protected by western males as "cultural integrity" instead of being recognized as gender-based torture designed to maintain male ownership of women's sexual services.

virgin girls are raped by HIV-positive males in Africa in the belief that sex with a virgin will cure them of the disease. The bushnazi regime has pulled virtually all funding for condom distribution AND sex education from agencies dealing with HIV/AIDS around the world because they believe in abstinence only. So population control, family planning AND the HIV/AIDS epidemic continue. All so white straight christian men in the US and its hegemony can continue to have sex when they want and excoriate the women with whom they have sex AND make the women responsible.

Abortion is barely legal in the US but it is not readily available. In many counties there are no abortion providers. Many states have passed "consent" laws that require women to make either two visits to a distant clinic or make lengthy overnight stays, both which are not economically feasible. Thus the "choice" to have an abortion -- so blithely referred to in this long thread -- is effective negated. Can't get an abortion? Oh, well, honey, shouldn't have let your egg get in the way of his sperm. See, he doesn't WANT to be responsible, but he's not going to let you have any viable options for exercising your responsibility.

Many insurance plans are refusing to cover women's contraceptives but will cover men's potency drugs such as Viagra. I have a friend in her late 40s whose husband just started taking the little blue pills. they had been having sex only a couple times a year, and she made sure it was "safe," since they can't afford contraceptives and his insurance doesn't cover them and he refuses, since she's his wife, to use a condom. She's terrified she's going to end up pregnant. he laughs and thinks it would be cute.

Wal-mart (gag me with a spoon) refuses to dispense RU-486 "the abortion pill" or "emergency contraception," which is nothing more than highly concentrated dosage of traditional birth control pills, on the grounds that they don't want to be guilty of forcing their pharmacists to participate in abortion. the woman who has unprotected sex -- willingly or unwillingly -- and who tries to take responsibility for both her actions and her body, is more often than not prevented from doing so.

Many hospitals are now owned and/or operated by the Roman Catholic Church and refuse to perform abortions or even sterilizations.

The US military does not provide abortions for servicewomen, even though as we have seen repeatedly, rape is not an uncommon occurence in the military.

Many medical schools do not teach prospective physicians how to perform abortions, thus effectively limiting women's access to this safe procedure. The University of Arizona accepted a $10 million donation to build a new football stadium, under the condition that the U of A medical school not teach abortion. The bushnazi Surgeon General Carmona is from the U of A.

The US congress has all too recently passed legislation that not only bans a specific procedure that terminates a very few (2000-3000 annually) pregnancies but could be used, if the right wing pro lifers have their way, to ban abortion completely or at least make it very rare.

The trend is not to go forward and be more progressive, giving women more choices in how to be responsible for their bodies and their children, but to restrict them. it burns me up to see so many people post here on DU that a woman faced with a pregnancy her partner doesn't want ought to just get an abortion and free him of the financial responsibility. It ain't that easy!

And we still have wage disparity and welfare reform (ugh) that leaves women consistently at an economic disadvantage. If all things were equal, if women had ready access to abortion and contraception, if they had equal access to living wage jobs and education and even the good ol' boy network, then maybe I'd be more willing to concede on the issue of child support. But all things aren't equal, and the father still has a duty of support to the child when and if it's born.

The men who want all these options to opt out of resposibility to their children don't seem to understand that the woman, whether she is willing or is raped, has the ultimate responsibility in the event of a pregnancy. She has to make all the decisions -- keep the baby, abort, pay for the abortion, give it up for adoption, whatever. She cannot, no matter what, walk away unscathed. If she's pregnant, she pays, one way or another, financially, emotionally, physically.

If she's pregnant, he wants out. He wants the option of NO RESPONSIBILITY at all. Not at the beginning -- it's all about his freedom to have sex when and with whom he chooses -- and not at the end -- if she doesn't tell him the truth, he kicks her out on the street. (You see, I think, the economic advantage: no one questioned "Well, what if it's her house?" Home ownership and therefore ownership of the woman is assumed to be the man's; even in our discussions, the default picture is of the woman being economically dependent on the man, i.e. concubinage and/or legal prostitution.)

If women truly had equal choices, it might be different. But they don't. Not even close.

Tansy Gold, married with children

[Booberdawg]

356. Great to have you here, militant feminist Tansy_Gold married with children

We need about a dozen more just like you! I have appreciated your contributions in this thread immensely!

Kudos, my dear wise and well-spoken militant feminist! :thumbsup:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

317. So explain adoption. Why can a woman renounce her obligations to a child?

There is a HUGE difference between "having" a child and "sharing financial responsibility for a child."

Yet a woman can renounce that too, by placing the child for adoption. So, if a man is forced to bare financial responsibility, then a woman should be forced to bear financial responsibility and thus adoption except in the cases where the parents are dead should be illegal.

Assuming the man consented to the sex in the first place, he consented to the responsibility for whatever happens as a result. Suppose he promises that night (or afternoon, whatever) that he'll provide for the child, but then a couple months later he changes his mind. Well, sorry, fellas, but it's too late for the pregnant woman to just "change her mind." She's pregnant. There's no changing her mind about that.

Yes there is, it's called abortion, and is the subject of this thread. A woman can change her mind for months after the child is conceived and have it aborted. Or she can carry the child to term, give birth to it, and adopt it out. Yet, here you are arguing as though those choices don't exist!

Oh, well, if she doesn't want to support it by herself -- she didn't conceive it by herself -- then she should just blithely get an abortion. But by the same token, if she doesn't want it and he does, he should have the right to veto her abortion?

No, she can also place the baby up for adoption, thereby NOT aborting but still renouncing her obligations to it. By the way, where did I say that a man should be able to force a woman to carry a child to full term? I in fact made it perfectly clear that NO-ONE should be forced to become a parent MAN or WOMAN, and that therefore means that the woman can choose to have it aborted regardless of the man's wishes.

Still, if you can't beat my arguments, why not just pretend I argued something else?

Responsibility for at least the financial aspects of child raising begins the second you insert your you-know-what into her you-know what. the best of intentions can go sour. The relationship can break up -- or the condom can break. Either way, you gotta take responsibility for your actions AND QUIT MAKING THE WOMAN RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING, but not giving her the power to make her own choices.

Yet you want the woman to be responsible for NOTHING. In your books she can abort or adopt and thereby renounce all obligations to the child, but the man does not get either choice. Sorry, but that is just plain sexist.

[Blue_Chill]

246. Since when have men had a say in abortion?

If you mean should men have a say in law making concerning abortion? YES. This is a democracy and everyone has a say. Don't like it? Well then that must suck, too bad.

[Clete]

253. Okay, fair game.

I think that all men who have fathered two genetic children should have a vasectomy. I want it to be the law.

[Blue_Chill]

321. Then try to pass it.

I'm betting you will fail. Good luck.

[Terwilliger]

252. On a national political level, HELL NO!!!

But, the father of the child is entitled to decisions about the course of his offspring.

[Clete]

254. Yes, when they become the offspring and that is once they

are born.

[Terwilliger]

266. no

the product of the union between the couple is the child

[Hippo_Tron]

268. Well my thought...

Is that if a woman is going to have an abortion it's probably either for health reasons or because of unintentional pregnancy. I don't see why in a case of unintentional pregnancy why a man would oppose the woman having an abortion other than it goes against his beliefs. In that case I'd say fuck his beliefs.

[HEyHEY]

273. I think they do

Not directly...as in "Honey get that thing aborted" but procreation concerns the entire human race. Thus men are involved too. So in a public sense, yeah they should have a say.

I am so tired of being told to feel like an scumbag nothing who is insensitive, and selfish, and violent just because I have a dick.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

275. The question is at what point..I say it's a moment before they leave

their sperm somewhere where it might abdicate their choice in the matter.

I am so tired of being told to feel like an scumbag nothing who is insensitive, and selfish, and violent just because I have a dick.

I would never tell a man to feel like that unless they were insensitive, selfish and violent regardless of whether that man had a dick.

Are you insensitive, selfish and violent?

[laylah]

280. What has befuddled me

for some time over this issue is that, imho, there is NO excuse for unwanted pregnancies these days (abuse, rape being the exceptions to the rule, of course); therefore, I believe that both parties are responsible for the child, once born. However, in-utero decisions, I feel, belong to the woman.

Jenn

[Tansy_Gold]

357. exceptions to the rule

1. Sexual abuse, especially of young girls, is more frequent than a lot of us like to believe.

2. Effective birth control is not as easy to obtain as one would think. Many men still refuse to use condoms; many women are not financially able to afford contraceptives. Barriers -- diaphragms, sponges, etc. -- require advance planning and are not always effective. Emergency contraception -- the "morning after" pill -- is also of limited availability.

3. Abortion is not always readily available or affordable.


The issue of unwilling parental financial support for a child is probably a statistically small portion of the larger pie -- which is the legality and availability of contraception and safe medical and surgical abortion for women who find themselves with unwanted (for whatever reason) pregnancies. By spinning it all into an issue of MEN'S rights, we move the focus from where it really belongs.


Tansy Gold, who sometimes gets so involved in her own rants that she, too, loses sight of the real target

[BonjourUSA]

282. This kind of sexist segregationism is jaw-dropping !

Man and French, or French and man as you like, I can't comment your domestic affairs but I'm absolutely stuned. Do you live the war of the sexes ?

You should discuss this important point with serenity and without moral or religious feelings just with a question : what is better for us and for living together, otherwise you're going to talk about it for a long time yet.

[VermontDem2004]

284. I don't think politicians should have a say in medical decisions

[BonjourUSA]

294. Dr Mendele had chance to be in the same way of thinking than nazi ?

If we agree with your idea we can conclude like that.

Why do you elect politicians if it's nothing else but for organizing the society ?

[VermontDem2004]

295. I just woke up so I had no idea what you said

but here is why I object to politicians making medical decisions. Many of them are not doctors and the one politician who is a doctor agrees with me. On the issue of Medical Marijuana, many doctors feel that Medical Marijuana does help you with your condition, but there are many politicians who don't want to legalize medical marijuana for whatever reasons, I think it is up to the doctors and scientists who study the issues long before the politicians have. I elect politicians to improve our way of living such on the issue of civil rights, fixing the economy, creating jobs, making health care more affordable, etc.

[BonjourUSA]

297. Elect politicians who share your ideas

it's the bases of the democracy.

Mendele practiced horrible "medical" experiences on the prisonners in concentration camps.

[VermontDem2004]

298. There is a difference between medical procedures

and torture.

[BonjourUSA]

299. We're taking about political decisions

First, I have to say I'm agree with abortion.

A politician decides the way of the society. In a democracy he is elected and his decisions must be a response to the ideas of his voters under their control, even if these ideas are right or wrong.

We're talking about abortion here, but we could also talk about euthanasia, cloning... All issues which engage the future of the society and depend on a political decision.

[mmonk]

296. When women can conceive by themselves

I guess they can call all the shots (I'm not talking the sperm bank way).

[Booberdawg]

301. When men can bear children and bear the health risks of pregnancy

then they can decide whether or not to have an abortion. Until then, women still have that legal right. (I guess women already DO get to call the shots, and rightly so.)

[mmonk]

309. I'm not for banning abortion,

I'm against the dehuminization of men and the dismissal of fatherhood.

[Blue_Chill]

322. Good post

Fathers have almost no rights when it comes to children and that extends far beyond the abortion debate.

The sad part is boys are growing up in a society that sends the message that they are NOT WANTED as fathers.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

344. Not at all correct. Men who DON'T PAY child support can still get

visitation rights since the TWO are separate and distinct. Men have a pattern in our society of abandoning their role.

The message that BOYS get from our society is BE BOYS and that includes a pop culture aimed at ENCOURAGING their sex drive void of ANY conversation of the consequences caused by that encouragement.

I RARELY here the offspring of single mothers say I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE A FATHER. What I DO hear them say is, "He wasn't there for me when I needed him, why does he want to know me now that I am grown?"

[Name removed]

314. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

316. Because banning abortion

will mark a return to back alley "butcher shops" and possible death to young women as well as being impractical.

[undergroundpanther]

332. Long post

I gotta rant here:

If a father wants a kid and mom doesen't want it,and he's demanding she not abort it,GIVE THE BABY TO HIM.
let him learn how to change diapers,let him go to work and scramble for daycare,let him learn to bottle feed it,take care of it when it's sick for 18 years.Wash your hands of the kid and him.Men do it,so women can take a tip from men and be like them to teach arrogant men a little empathy for the plight of women. Why not put the male logic on the other foot..Why should she pay him child support,when he wanted it..Why should women because of biology be bound to babies they don't want? What was bottle feeding invented for?

If men want a say in a woman's choices, more men need to experince child rearing alone. Let him take in the squawling pooping, frustrating,pleasure limiting results of his self serving pro-life beliefs.
Women can also MAKE the pro-life churches take in the unwanted babies in the most awkward embarassing ways.Make fundy churches deal with the results of thier political agendas by leaving them a 'gift' of life..
Fundie churches are counting on desperate,ashamed,scared, financially dependant, obedient guilty women to carry burdens men don't want,but have no problem co-creating.

Being pro-life extends beyond saving unborn fetuses and forcing birth,
a life is life until it dies naturally. SSo make these fundie churches consistent ,force them to support LIFE in all stages of it,not just the easy,politically advantageous, cute ones.Make them help the LIVING poor,change LIVING old people's depends,feed LIVING babies and kids,fix the LIVING homeless people's situations,help LIVING adult parents financially.

Shame the churches for thier obvious disconnection from reality and the results of thier hypocraisy concerning thier own beliefs.They won't change until they realize they have to.FORCE Churches TO LIVE UP to their own god given commandments.Like not lording over people.Don't let them only do the "fun" commandments in church like little evangelism perfomances,but embarass the church and the congergations while using the bible's own words,like giving up all thier personal wealth for the poor,to follow jesus.
If you are a church goer do embarass fellow christians in public for not tossing moneychangers out of chuch,or failing practice lovingkindness to people they don't like or who aren't christian. Remind them to go pray in closets and let god change sinners hearts himself instead of making a big show out of thier religion and piousness like the pharasee do.
Become a heckler of hypocrites,go into a church and raise thorny issues of thier inconsistency with thier own religion with a bit of "reality therapy",guts and mouthiness.

What would Fallwell do if his own congregants and the public really shamed him to behave like a christian and take in unknown unaborted babies that were were left time and again at his church for him to care for? What if people stopped tithing until he changed into a better christian? Would these fundies still run to the state adoption agency to dump the kids off like they accuse mothers who get abortions of doing?

Putting a baby on a church step isn't what would be preferred for a baby's future I know.I dunno if it's even legal or not.
But..life is hard for the living too,and sometimes you gotta do dramatic things to teach wealthy,oblivious hypocritical mouthy deluded bible thumpers how tough reality is for you by making them experince it a little. Especially if your choices and options that might be more humane are taken away because of some loudmouth is hellbent on tweaking civil laws into biblical laws..


Sometimes I think Vasecetomies and tubal ligations are great things and should be encouraged,and made cheap for people who don't want kids.I know some people don't want pregnancy in thier life and they should never be pressured to be parents or feel guilty for not wanting to be parents.
Sometimes abortion is better than life.
I know this will offend people,but sometimes when you look at the toturous reality some kids live through in abusive home you develop empathy for the kids. You feel anger and sorrow for the messed up selfish,sick oblivious parents who abuse.

In some family situations an abortion does seem more merciful than a life as a child in hell.By the time teenagers try to escape thier parents control,deep psychological damage has been done that takes a lifetime to heal.I grew up in a shitty home. Sometimes I wish I wasen't born to go through what I did.Healing from abuse is painful.I am here because my mom's empathy wasen't used fully or honestly. She didn't stop to empathize with her fetus and consider the situation I would be born into, her husband was a drunk incapable of emotional sanity and responsibility ,she was stressed out had depression and severe anxiety problems.She didn't consider the home life she helped make with my father might impact me in a bad way, because she was selfish.She had me for her own emotional needs.And some parents are selfish like this and will not admit it even in thier own heart.I am not always grateful for this life ,or thankful to my parents for bringing me here to be honest.

Adults with thier unconfronted psychological problems inaverdantly,unconsiously recreate thier own hang-ups in the emotions of the next generation.
Abortion can short circuit this process and give more people time to heal emotionally in thier own lives and relationships before taking on an unexpected baby they are not ready to raise to be emotionally healthy because they are sick themselves.
Troubled adults,turned parental who may be well meaning but are emotionally unable to cope.Get stressed out,act in denial,are neurotic and unhappy can create the conditions in the home that make for confused,angry,depressed kids who may grow into neurotic unhappy adults if they don't heal themselves and confront thier own inner emotional problems.Hurting people sometimes end up getting in trouble because they don't know how to cope with an emotional,intimate,negotiable relationship between two different people.They don't know how to relate to others in a healthy way because thier parents were unable to teach them how,because they didn't cope in thier own relationships in a healthy way either.

Sometimes the trouble people get into entails an unwanted pregnancy with another hurting person who also is incapable of responsibility,commitment and lacks self esteem,lacks the financial and emotional stability to raise a kid without hurting or neglecting it and they will instill and reproduce thier own issues,quite unconsiously in their own kid's psychological make up. Sadly sometimes two hurting people are really seeking comfort and connection with each other,and people sometimes mistakenly seek sex when they really want to feel intimacy with someone and they get a pregnancy.It's not just teenagers who make these kind of mistakes in relationships full grown adults do too.
People who have good self esteem,and know themselves tend to get themselves out of bad relationships with manipulative or abusive partners quicker than people who have emotional problems and neurotic defense mechanisms.Emotionally stable people use foresight more realistically than people who are chronically guilty,neurotic,controlling,defensive,hurting and confused
about thier own motivations and doubtful of thier own self worth.

No one should be forced to raise a kid they can't raise well with love and commitment because of biology,an old 2,000 year old text found in a jar in the desert,neurotic,or controlling hang up of thier partner,or societies collective hang ups made into law,revolving around birth,death and sex,passed on blithely from generation to generation.

[in_cog_ni_to]

327. A fetus is not a baby

that's why.

[Skittles]

324. NO

ABSOLUTELY NONE.

[mmonk]

343. Can't believe this thread still lives!

Way too cumbersome to go through now.

[Hep]

352. I know I would

Because I have a strong relationship built on communication.

[Redleg]

362. Our elected representatives, whether men or women, should be

able to make laws. I don't support outlawing abortion, but our democratic republic does place the responsibility for legislation into the hands of our legislators.

[Madrone]

366. As a woman who is very pro-choice I say ABSOLUTELY

Men should ABSOLUTELY have a say in decisions concerning their child.

I think the whole "delicate women risking certain death" argument is complete and total bullshit. Sure, there are situations where this could be a reality, but come ON - we women are tough. In most cases pregnancy is NOT life-threatening. Sure, maybe a little uncomfortable, and morning-sickness is no great thing - but jesus. :eyes: The chances of risking certain death are very slim, and trying to use that as an argument makes you look ridiculous. What it shows is that you are advocating selfish petulance and bitchiness for the sake of having YOUR WAY.

The "men have a choice to not have SEX" argument is also bs. Women are equally responsible. EQUALLY. Don't want kids, don't want to risk pregnancy, don't open your legs for any Tom's Harry Dick that tells you you have nice eyes. In fact, since the main argument seems to be men are horny bastards with no self-control and who cannot be relied upon to take precautions I'd say that leaves even MORE responsiblity on the woman to keep her legs shut.

Rape. Another non-argument. TOTALLY different situation and totally different circumstances. No one is advocating a woman having a heart to heart with her rapist to determine whether he wants to co-parent a child. :eyes:

Child support / visitation. Again - crappy argument. True, they are two seperate issues and a man that pays no support can still see his children if he wants to. Should children be forced to pay for their father's financial irresponsibility even MORE by being denied a relationship with him? The fact is that there are many situations in the reverse - men that pay support and CAN'T see their kids, no matter how much they want to. Men with exes that take the children without their consent and move them across country. Women that play games and instead of focusing on what is best for their CHILDREN focus on their own selfish desires and vindictiveness and deny visitation. It happens more often than you think! And please - if you think it is a fraction as easy for a man to receive support from a woman when he has full custody you obviously know nothing about the way the real world in the Family Courts works.

My husband/boyfriend/one night stand can't tell ME what to do with MY BODY. What this says to me is that hey - if your husband or boyfriend wants to start boinking every open hole from here to Timbucktoo, hey, it's HIS BODY. Who are YOU to tell HIM what to do with HIS body? Does noone love and respect their partners any more? If you can't honestly take your loved one's feelings and opinions into consideration stay single and, as has been mentioned numerous times to the men on the board (here I am forcing equality down your collective throats again) DONT HAVE SEX.

I don't have the answers to solving these issues - and I don't believe forced childbirth by legislation IS an answer. I do believe that if (some)women weren't selfish little petulant BRATS they could put aside their iwantiwantIWANT tantrums and act like adults who took their partners opinions and feelings into consideration. Just as they expect MEN to do for them. I'd have a great deal more respect for a woman who considered continuing a pregnancy she didn't want and relinquished all rights and responsibilites to the father who DID want it than I do for women who cut the man out of the equation completely and did what SHE wanted in a tantrum.

I guess my point is that while I don't want women to be legislated to give their partners a "choice" in what they do with their bodies, I have hope that most women would be enlightened enough, kind enough, and repsonsible enough to do it ANYWAY. Judging from the posts on this thread I'd say I wonder if that will happen.

Equality. Personal responsibilty. It's our choice, ladies. We want it, or we don't. If we DON'T (and I certainly don't fall into that category) then we may as well roll back to the 18th century. If we DO we need to grow up and start acting like it. You can't have it both ways.

[Selwynn]

367. Should a father be able to overule the mother on abortion?

Don't dodge the question. I don't want to hear about how relationships should be loving and mutual so there should never be a disagreement between the father and mother. That's fine and dandy, but also frequently not the case.

So just answer me this: should the father have the right to overrule the mother and stop her from choosing abortion?

Yes or no.

[Madrone]

370. Ultimately, no.

Why would I dodge the question? :)

Anyway, like I said, no. I do NOT believe that sort of thing should be legislated. An "overule" would have to be legislated.

Honestly, I think it would be more FAIR than the way things are now if they were allowed to overule, provided there were not health complications and things of that nature to contend with. Also assuming, OF COURSE, that it wasn't a rape situation or some other horrible situation. But although I think it would be more fair (as in equal) than a woman unilaterally overuling a man I do NOT in any way shape or form thing that would be a good idea. I'd actually freak out if anything like that ever were legislated.

The problem is this isn't a black/white cut/dried issue - if abortion were only something that happened as a result of rape, it'd be black/white. If it happened only under circumstances resulting from one night stands where it was later determined the man was a mean and violent sob with murderous tendencies it'd be cut/dried.

If I were pregnant I'd certainly not want any man telling me what I HAD to do - but I look at it from the viewpoint that because I wouldn't want HIM doing that to ME, I couldn't do it to him either.

Like I said - I don't have any answers about how to change things, I only know that the way things are aren't always the RIGHT way. I think it's much more a social issue than a legal one.

[Selwynn]

371. Ok, so my reason for asking is this...

Is because I think there is no consensus on what is meant when we say "any say" or "say in the matter."

Many many people feel that in the ideal situation of a loving committed relationship, the father has a rightful and understandable expectation to be involved in the decision making process - I agree with that. However, I also think of the real world we live in where loving committed relationships are not always the experience a pregnant woman finds herself in. Many people who are voting "yes" on the poll questions are ultimately saying "no, I do not believe a father should have the right to overrule a woman choice, or prevent a woman from exercising free choice about medical matters of her own body." That's what I would be saying. If no agreement could be reached, ultimately the woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body should take precedence.

Now, it sounds like you're saying that you think it would be more fair if men were allowed to prevent a woman from making medical decisions about her body. I was trying to understand your argument, that it would be more "equal" if men could trump the choice of a woman about her own body - but I couldn't quite get it. It seems to me that that really wouldn't be equal at all, but instead drastically unequal.

Maybe in a situation where the father and the mother cannot agree no real "equality" is possible? And I think in those unfortunate situations where the law would have no choice but to affirm the primacy of one person's wishes over the other - the woman's should take precedent for a multitude of reasons. The biggest one being, that ultimately not matter how intimately related to the father, it still boils down to the right of an individual person to make personal medical decisions, and I think that right should be protected by law.

Does that make sense?

Edit - holy horrendous spelling, batman!

[Madrone]

378. I can see your point.

And I can appreciate it.

I didn't read the original post as "should men be allowed to use the LAW to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want" - I was looking at it more from the "should a man be able to voice his concerns to the woman carrying his child and have her give him serious consideration" angle.

I guess I can see your "medical desicions regarding a woman's body" point as well - but except in instances of legitimate health concerns I have a difficult time viewing pregnancy as a "medical condition". It's a very natural, temporary, albeit uncomfortable and sometimes inconvenient thing in my view - which is why I have a problem with the "certain death" dramatic flair that is often given when trying to make that argument.

But I do see what you are saying. And, again, I do NOT want the government making that choice for me.

I've actually advocated for 2 pregnant people I know to have abortions when I found out they were pregnant. One, a 15 year old girl, very naieve, and definitely not emotionally ready to raise a child. The other a 24 year old girl with 2 kids she already can't afford, a bad depression problem, poor self esteem, and barely able to care for HERSELF, let alone another baby. Both are friends, both are having their babies. I love them both and support them in their decisions, but their situations make me heartsick. They know how I feel about it, but the decision is theirs to make.

[Clete]

369. So from what you are saying you agree with

the male legislators invading your female decisions and that the rest of us who think it's shitty are a bunch of whiney brats?

[Madrone]

372. Wrong!

I'm saying that I take personal responsibility very seriously, it takes two to tango, and that although I DONT want it legislated I feel I am morally, ethically, and intellectually REQUIRED to take my partner's feelings into SERIOUS consideration if I ever find myself in that situation. NOT legally required.

And if after taking my partner's feelings into consideration and he is against an abortion I want I am morally, ethically, and intellectually required to do the RIGHT thing - even if it would mean personal sacrifice.

If I decided to have a baby he didn't want he would be required to make a personal sacrifice, and turn about is fair play.

I doubt I would ever be in this situation, but for example - if I did NOT want a child but my partner DID, and he sincerely wanted the baby and was willing to absolve me of all responsibility for the care and upkeep of the child I feel the only intellectually honest thing I could do would be to grant him that wish - continue the pregnancy and turn the child over to him afterwards. It wouldn't be easy, and it would be a HUGE sacrifice, but I believe that would be the only right thing for me to do. This, of course, is provided the father is not the scumbag, rapist, child molesting, murderer type mentioned in other posts.

In my world, refusing to do this, while requiring him to make sacrifices he has no CHOICE in is sheer hypocricy.

Like I said above - this is no black/white issue. There are thousands of variables, and we can't just shove the whole subject into a little box like freepers are wont to do.

I've thought about this a great deal - and the above is the only honest answer I could come to that extends the same respect and consideration to the "hypothetical father" that I would demand for myself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

376. What if you were 15 or 16 or 20?

And the word HYPOCRISY is one I tend to not use since it really has lost all meaning.

And while you might carry a baby for nine months and hand it over on an internet bulletin board....I'll believe it when I see it. :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

374. Once it is a born child, I would agree...the issue is what SHOULD be

LEGALLY required prior to that time.

Now as to the rest of your arguments point by point:

I think the whole "delicate women risking certain death" argument is complete and total bullshit. Sure, there are situations where this could be a reality, but come ON - we women are tough. In most cases pregnancy is NOT life-threatening.

I don't think ANYONE used the word CERTAIN death but complications from diabetes, hypertension and other factors ARE QUITE common and as such present a RISK to the general health of the mother. That is why although one would hope people DID and SHOULD communicate, the law should err on the side of the woman who faces the risk.

Secondly, according to an ABC report in the last year or two, the leading cause of death in pregnant women was their husbands/ mates...HOMOCIDE...so let's not overlook the fact that a man who would FORCE a woman to keep a baby she didn't want isn't EXACTLY prince charming.

The "men have a choice to not have SEX" argument is also bs. Women are equally responsible. EQUALLY. Don't want kids, don't want to risk pregnancy, don't open your legs for any Tom's Harry Dick that tells you you have nice eyes. In fact, since the main argument seems to be men are horny bastards with no self-control and who cannot be relied upon to take precautions I'd say that leaves even MORE responsiblity on the woman to keep her legs shut.


Again, allow me to pull the rug out from under your assessment since all you do with this paragraph is repeat the "boys will be boys" argument that has gotten men off the hook up until recently and now that THEY too are being held accountable for their reproductive powers, they don't seem to like it much. Even your crass linguistics in the matter is a bit of a put down. More often than not ALL responsibility lies with the woman to practice birth control. If a MAN is WORRIED about reproducing, maybe he should get a reversible vasectomy and save some sperm in a sperm bank for MS RIGHT. Eh?


Rape. Another non-argument. TOTALLY different situation and totally different circumstances. No one is advocating a woman having a heart to heart with her rapist to determine whether he wants to co-parent a child. :eyes:

Guess you forgot about the FLorida law last year that was struck down by the courts requiring a woman to post in the newspaper her sexual history prior to giving a child up for adoption.

Here is a synopsis from another site..it was in LBN at the time:
The Fourth District Court of Appeals struck down a Florida law that required birth mothers, including rape victims and teenage girls, who wanted to give their child up for adoption to take out newspaper ads publicizing their sexual histories, purportedly to identify the father. The court said the law “violates a fundamental right to privacy,” according to the Miami Herald. The state, which refused to defend the law, also failed to show how the rights of the father or the state could outweigh “the privacy rights of mother and child in not being identified in such a personal, intimate and intrusive manner,” the Herald reports. Remember all my feminist posts way back when? This post is for all you jerks who asked me "aren't women equals already? what more freedoms do you want?" This is something that JUST HAPPENED. That means that up until now, if a woman was RAPED or a teenager gets pregnant, if they want to give the baby up for adoption, they had to put their entire sexual history in the NEWSPAPER for all to read. I am estatic that this law is no longer in action, but it ENFURIATES me to NO END when I think of all the mothers who CHOSE to carry their baby to term instead of getting it aborted and then got a slap in the face for putting their child up for adoption when they realize that they cannot care for it. I especially feel for rape victims. What options were they given? They certainly had no option when it came to getting pregnant. And then if they cannot go through with abortion, they are faced with telling everybody who reads the paper all about their sexual history. I'm sorry for ranting. I just hope that some of you are as angry as I am that a law like this existed, and as happy as I am that it is no longer implemented.

So roll your eyes all you want...you are not correct


Child support / visitation. Again - crappy argument. True, they are two seperate issues and a man that pays no support can still see his children if he wants to. Should children be forced to pay for their father's financial irresponsibility even MORE by being denied a relationship with him? The fact is that there are many situations in the reverse - men that pay support and CAN'T see their kids, no matter how much they want to. Men with exes that take the children without their consent and move them across country. Women that play games and instead of focusing on what is best for their CHILDREN focus on their own selfish desires and vindictiveness and deny visitation. It happens more often than you think! And please - if you think it is a fraction as easy for a man to receive support from a woman when he has full custody you obviously know nothing about the way the real world in the Family Courts works.

I agree it is a crappy argument to use against a woman. Child support and reproductive rights are separate and distinct issues.

As far as your comments about men collecting child support from women, at least in California for MEN OR WOMEN t is based on ability to pay, so it is often just as difficult for the woman and poorly enforced anyway. I definitely know how the real word works in family courts...I interned in a family law firm. Where the ABILITY to pay is there, it isn't that tough.

So that addresses the part of your post that you set forth as facts. The vast remainder, I have no issue with.


All you straight folks won't let me get married and don't support my rights and look at the mess you make of your own. :D

[Madrone]

379. A few clarifications and a response ---

<<<Again, allow me to pull the rug out from under your assessment since all you do with this paragraph is repeat the "boys will be boys" argument that has gotten men off the hook up until recently and now that THEY too are being held accountable for their reproductive powers, they don't seem to like it much. Even your crass linguistics in the matter is a bit of a put down. More often than not ALL responsibility lies with the woman to practice birth control. If a MAN is WORRIED about reproducing, maybe he should get a reversible vasectomy and save some sperm in a sperm bank for MS RIGHT. Eh?>>>

I do NOT believe the "boys will be boys" argument - but that seemed to be what was being said in some other posts on this board. My response was basically "If that's your arguement (men = slimy, horny bastards following their dicks) then hey, you've got even MORE responsibility to protect yourself!" I DO believe men should be held responsible - you play, you pay. The problem I have is that men can play and pay, but women get all the say! I'm a woman - TRUST me, I've thought about this long and hard. My views have also changed over the years. And by hypocricy (which you mentioned in your other reply) I'm talking about MYSELF - I can't see asking a man for more than I'm willing to extend to him myself. That's MY thing - that's why I said in MY view, in the way I look at things, and how I think when I picture myself in a scenerio like the one mentioned above - pregnant by a man I don't necessarily want to be with forever, but someone who's a decent, honest person. Like I said, it's not all black/white.

I agree with you regarding "if a man is worried about reproducing...", but the difference I guess is that I feel the SAME hold true for women. The blame cannot be pushed more to one side or the other - the blame lies equally on both sides.


<<<Guess you forgot about the FLorida law last year that was struck down by the courts requiring a woman to post in the newspaper her sexual history prior to giving a child up for adoption.>>>

I didn't forget about it, I didn't know about it! You are right, that is reprehensible! Even though I read these boards every day I can't catch everything - that was obviously one I missed. Thank you for mentioning it.

When I said "no one is advocating a heart to heart with her rapist" I meant no one on these boards, involved in this conversation. I would venture to guess that even the most ignorant of the ignorant public wouldn't advocate for that either.


re: "certain death"

Okay okay - no one used that word. I admit it. I was dramaticizing the dramatic :) I understand there ARE sometimes health issues, but I don't think that should be the largest basis of an argument, especially when it's used so dramatically. Heck, I'M pro-choice and it makes me cringe - I can imagine what it makes those looking to pick apart the "libruls" think.


<<<All you straight folks won't let me get married and don't support my rights and look at the mess you make of your own.>>>

Believe me, if I ruled the world you getting married wouldn't even be an ISSUE. It boggles my mind it's even a problem. It's a crazy world we live in.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

380. Fair enough but I REALLY don't care about what lurkers think I THINK

Even as a lesbian, I get hit on by men that REFUSE to let up until I actually GET nasty with them since they are NOT going to score..being around lawyers ( a slimy lot they are) I get it FREQUENTLY...there are many gentlemen...somewhere...really...I think.

I would ALSO underscore the fact that the fundamentalists in our government make it HARDER and HARDER for women to TAKE that responsibility upon themselves by starving the educational system of practical information.

And AGAIN, in MY view, this is NOT about blame. It is about who carries the risks and responsibilities and on WHOSE side the law should THERFORE err. Even if the chances of death and health risks are low, NO MAN EVER DIED from paying child support (although I am certain someone will come up with some anecdotal bullshit story and claim they have a friend who has a friend who did)

In FACT, I think the issue STRIPPED is this. Does a woman control the course of her body and her life concerning reproductive rights...or does the state? Everything else and all this men wanting equality shit is JUST THAT...SHIT..it isn't their body.End of story.

All the crap about child support? That involves the CHILD's PERSON and the CHILD's well being..NOT THE MOTHER'S. Any deliberate commingling of the issues is just that...a deliberate commingling of the issues.

As far as what it would take to TRANSFORM this conversation ONCE we MAKE sure the LAW protects the rights of the woman and her body...I am ALL FOR IT...AFTER that.

:toast:

BTW, the same people that want to take away women's rights want to make sure I can't marry.

[Madrone]

381. Ha! - nothingshocksmeanymore

<<<NO MAN EVER DIED from paying child support (although I am certain someone will come up with some anecdotal bullshit story and claim they have a friend who has a friend who did)>>>

This sentence has me cracking up! And it's another great point - one that's obvious and makes perfect sense, although it hadn't occurred to me before.

<<<Even as a lesbian, I get hit on by men that REFUSE to let up until I actually GET nasty with them since they are NOT going to score>>>

Well DUH! Don't you know girl-on-girl action is HOT!!? :eyes: lol - More and more often I'm jealous god didn't make ME a lesbian.


:)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

383. Don't worry..if men don't cool it with this crap, I'll bet God makes alot

more lesbians :D

[Madrone]

382. Ha!- nothingshocksmeanymore

<<<NO MAN EVER DIED from paying child support (although I am certain someone will come up with some anecdotal bullshit story and claim they have a friend who has a friend who did)>>>

This sentence has me cracking up! And it's another great point - one that's obvious and makes perfect sense, although it hadn't occurred to me before.

<<<Even as a lesbian, I get hit on by men that REFUSE to let up until I actually GET nasty with them since they are NOT going to score>>>

Well DUH! Don't you know girl-on-girl action is HOT!!? :eyes: lol - More and more often I'm jealous god didn't make ME a lesbian.


:)

[Clete]

375. I started another thread for this post.

at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=582536

I think this particular thread has gotten too long and Proud Rat has some points that should be discussed.

[Clete]

384. Well, this sucks.

If I were a mod, I would have locked this thread instead. What flame war anyway?

[corarose]

377. Yes and No

If a woman is far enough into the pregnancy that the baby could live if it were born then I think that the man should have a choice.
If the man wants his kid and woman is too far gone then he should be able to keep his child even if the woman doesn't want it.

[Roy_C]

385. Church and Roe vs Wade

The Roe vs Wade decision was based on common law and was identical to church policy during the Middle Ages.

The key word in Roe is 'quickening', when movements take place in the fetus. Before that, for the church or for civil government, a woman could do as she wished.

Roe vd Wade goes back to that position, which has areas of agreement with the Church which saw the fetus as without soul until quickening.

The Supreme Court's decision was also based on the survivability of the fetus outside the womb. In the last trimester, the fetus can survive, and has.

You have offered no reason as to how this area only concerns women all the way into the third trimester. The court and the Church in the Middle Ages agree with you in the first trimester.

Are you saying that in the week before you would otherwise give birth, it is only your business to abort or not?

Roy C

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

386. Third trimester abortions are far more rare and are usually

performed for health risks to the mother or the fetus.


To start, the term itself is not medical, but invented by the pro-life movement to evoke images of fetuses aborted moments from birth. Yet it is so vaguely defined that many state laws banning "partial birth" have been struck down by the courts as embracing pre-viability abortions. True late-term abortion is exceedingly uncommon: Only 1 in 1,000 abortions takes place after 24 weeks, out of the total of 1.2 million abortions in the U.S. And because of the risks of harassment or worse, the doctors willing to perform them are about as rare.


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

To learn about a think tank's pro-choice resource guide, click here:
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=370&mode=today


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

Why perform them at all? Not, as we are led to believe, because a prospective mother has tardily concluded that she does not wish to be one. Rather, they result from severe fetal anomalies, a palpable risk to a woman's life or health--or both. Each of the women I interviewed was pregnant with wanted children; none contemplated abortion until faced with pregnancies gone hideously wrong--some of which threatened their own life and health. Yet even though termination was clearly in the interests of both the women and their families, none could relive this experience without lapsing into speechlessness, or even tears. I am aware of no evidence refuting these women as the human face of late-term abortion--certainly the pro-life groups I contacted provided none.

But because the procedures required for late-term abortion are not pleasant, the distasteful picture operates to obscure the medical reasons for it. In turn, that has allowed the pro-life movement to vilify a handful of already traumatized women in the service of a larger goal: to erode public support for the right to choose, protected by the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.
http://64.81.195.15/article.cfm/dyn/aid/371/context/archive