Abortion for Men!

I'm trying to get some support for this idea.

First of all, I'm a gurl, (and a sterile one at that) so it's certainly not self-serving.

I think the laws regarding reproductive freedom in this country are grossly unfair. Men are stripped of any choice except the choice not to have sex at all, which isn't reasonable.

Think about it: why should men be totally at the mercy of a woman's choices for herself?

If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to avoid pregnancy and motherhood via abortion. (I believe in a woman's right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.) This is right and good. But the father cannot stop her if he wants to become a father. This is also right and good.

But what if she chooses to keep the baby? Can the father force her to abort it if he doesn't want it? No, and he shouldn't be able to. Yet SHE is able to force HIM to be a father even if he doesn't want it. If nothing else, she can force him to be financially responsible. And I think that blows.

The biological differences prevent perfect parity here, but I do believe we can get closer than we are now via a simple change in the law. Men should be permitted to legally reject fatherhood by making a declaration. Very simple. It would work the same way it does for women: they would have to make the declaration in say, the first 5 months of her preganancy. After that, it must be assumed that they are willingly taking on the obligations of paternity.

Furthermore, to prevent women from manipulating men by failing to inform him that she is pregnant until it is too late, the burden of proof would be on her if she claims he knew and failed to do anything about it.

Very simple, and as close to fair as is possible.

I believe that such a system would have a noticable impact on the number of single mothers. IF women understood that having a man's baby would NOT legally tie him to her forever, perhaps they would think twice about going forward with their pregnancies, or even allowing themselves to get pregnant in the first place. It wouldn't eliminate it, certainly, but I think it would help.

And why men haven't bitched about the inequity of this system up to now is beyond me. If I was a guy I'd be screaming bloody murder.

Prairie Rose: Hey, jsut because we disagree on one thing doesn't mean we would or should disagree on all things!

Handy: The baby only has rights if it is actually born, and whether it is or isn't is very much affected by the choices made by the mother. That is essentially a different topic. My argument begins with the law as it now stands, which is that women have the right to choose to have a child or not, and men are completely at the mercy of those choices.

Yepitsme: But you aren't addressing the disparity here. Let's say (assuming you are male for the moment, I don't know) that you and I have sex. And let's say we use a condom and it breaks, and I become pregnant.

You are now standing on the sidelines waiting for ME to decide how YOUR life is going to come out. I have complete freedom to decide not only MY future, but YOURS.

If I do not want the baby, no sweat: I have actually TWO legal options available to me: I can either abort, leaving us with no child at all and no future issues to deal with, OR I can choose to give that child up for adoption.

If I DO want the baby, I go ahead and have it. And not only that, I come after you for child support to boot!

And what are your choices?

You want the baby? No choice, you can only hope I want it, too. (Or, if I've elected to go the adoption route, you can contest and take custody yourself. Assuming you even know what's going on.)

You don't want the baby? No choice, you can only hope that I don't want it either.

Men have NO choices, NO control. The ONLY choice they have is to NOT have sex. WOMEN get ALL choices. Bottom line: NOT FAIR.

One thing I am not certian about, but it seems to me it would have come up in paternity cases if this was an option. Why can't men "give up" their children for "adoption" by the mother if they want? I don't believe this is possible, and it is in essence what I'm saying should be allowed.

Men should not be forced to take responsibility for children thay have made quite clear they do not want, right from the beginning. (This should not apply if a man has taken responsibility and then changes his mind later. No go on that one.)

And I have yet to have anyone make a good case to me about why our current system is fair.

------------------
Stoidela

so, essentially what your saying is that a man should be able to sleep around, not use protection and then just duck out of any responsibility? Sorry, but that just does not seem right to me.

I don't think our current system is fair. However, I don't think that the system you are proposing is any more fair. Indeed, I think that it will do more harm than good.

Hey, no one said life is fair (to quote my father). If you choose to have sex, then you had better think long and hard about the consequences and possible outcomes. Yes, your life will change. Yes, it will be harder. Things will happen that are beyond your control. Deal with it. If you are not willing and able to take responsibility for your actions, then you had better be damn sure that you are taking steps to ensure that pregnancy does not occur (I agree - that male b/c pill is a wonderful idea - I hope it becomes available soon).

I know that some women get pregnant in order to "keep their man" and I think that is very wrong. I'm not sure how to solve that, but greater access to birth control for men would be a good step (meaning the pill for them or a depo-type shot for them). But I just can't agree that letting them give up their personsibilities is a good solution.


btw, since everyone else said where they're coming from, I'll let you know where I'm coming from. I am a mother of two children. I was a teen mom, and the father and I were married for eight years. He still takes responsibility by paying child support and he is a wonderful father.

Bottom line here, folks:

WOMEN can shirk their responsibilities! Why are men expected to shoulder theirs?



------------------
Stoidela

And your answer is what? Responsibility for none? Everyone do whatever you want - there are no consequences - woohoo!

yah, screw the children - who cares about them? they aren't even born yet, so why should we worry about them?

It seems to me that Stoidela is taking issue with biology, which is beyond anyone's power to change. A woman can decide whether or not to have a baby because SHE is the one having the baby. We may talk about co-parenting and sharing pregnancies, but the bottom line is that only one person is the incubator and that's the woman. It's HER body and therefore her decision whether she wants to have the baby or not. You're right; men essentially stand on the sidelines when this decision is made, but there's no way around that -- the man isn't having the baby and no man (or government) should be able to force a woman to have a baby if she doesn't want to. I don't think this is particularly unfair to men in general; the man doesn't get to choose because the man isn't bearing the child.

But if the woman has the child against the man's will, should the man be held responsible for it? Hell, yes. Child support isn't for the benefit of the mother, it's for the benefit of the child and of society in general, because children whose parents don't support them are supported by the State. You may have a point that the mother, by choosing to have the child, is "forcing" the man into a position of parenthood that he doesn't want, but it wouldn't be fair to punish the child for the mother's actions by removing the child's right to parental support.

If a man doesn't want the responsibility of a child, he should excercise some restraint and responsibility in his sexual habits -- like using a condom, to start.

Stoidela is absolutely right, and has thought this all the way through, including the use of birth control measures.

The "What about the baby?" question is one for the mother-to-be, as in "What about having a baby that the father doesn't want?" Unfortunately, this adds another layer of difficulty to the choice for the pregnant woman, but, hey - she's in for a minimum 20-year emotional roller coaster ride if she goes full term. Better that she face this problem before she shares it with a baby.

What I find interesting is that the focus has been on how to get the I-don't-want-it father off the hook. I assume that this is because the I-do-want-it father is more problematic; how can he have his baby if she won't bring it to term?

If the medicine were there, could the law go in and get it and plant it somewhere else to grow?

Man, the way you guys are so completely willing to ignore that WOMEN BLOW OF FTHEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TOO absolutely amazes me!

Unless you are anti-abortion AND anti-adoption, it is not LOGICAL to say that men shouldn't have any option while it's perfectly ok for a woman to have the options. WHY WHY WHY???? Please, someone, present me an argument that amounts to more than "Just cuz".

By the way... I aint' saying there is anything admirable about anyone blowing off their parental responsibilities. HOWEVER...if I were Queen, I would force anyone who wanted to have children to be licensed, and licensing would involve getting an in depth psychological evaluation and passing it.

Too damn many unwanted kids being born as it is. Norplant for every woman the minute she goes through puberty! (I can be something of a fascist, which is okay, because I have no power.)

Better that than the physically, emotionally, spritually and psychologically beaten and scarred people we have now.



------------------
Stoidela

some women may "blow off their responsibilities", as you put it...

consider this though - who has to carry the baby in their womb for nine months and then give it up to a stranger if they choose adoption? who has to go through a major surgery and deal with the emotinal and/or physical scars of having an abortion if they choose to give up the baby? who has to raise the baby for at least 18 years if they choose to keep the baby? the mother - she has no choice - the baby is INSIDE her and she can not simply decide that she doesn't want to deal with motherhood and give up her claims to it. No matter what she chooses, it will effect her.

The way I see it, adoption and abortion are NOT about shirking responsibility. They are about choosing the best option. Often the above options are actually MORE responsible than keeping the baby.

What you are proposing in completely different, at least in my eyes. It does not have to do with choosing the best option for the parents and the unborn baby. It has to do with letting the father out of his parental duty. Not only does he not have to make the choice to give birth or not give birth - not only does he not have to face the option of having major surgery or giving away something that has grown inside him for nine months - he also does not even have to acknowledge that he is the parent or take any responsibility for the baby that HE helped create, according to your plan.

I'm having a really hard time seeing how this would be a good thing.

p.s. you say "Too damn many unwanted kids being born as it is"

how the heck do you figure that your plan will reduce unwanted children? The way I see it, it will only encourage ment o have irresponsible sex - after all, there are no consequences for them. Seems to me that we would have just as many unwanted births - only under your plan we would have more fatherless children.

Yep:

Well, first of all, keep in mind that I am a woman myself, so you don't need to clarify for me what reproduction means to my gender. I am a woman who has had an abortion, and I am a woman who elected to have my tubes tied rather than deal with the whole thing any more. *I* made those choices, because I saw it as MY problem. *I* didn't want to get pregnant, so *I* made sure that I wouldn't. And in the 20 years between the abortion and the tube tying, I made absolutely certain that I was protected from pregnancy.

However, had I been a different sort of woman, a more stupid one, a more manipulative one, I could have allowed myself to become pregnant through irresponsibility. Or I could have DELIBERATELY become pregnant while lying thorugh my teeth to the man I was sleeping with. Would it have been fair for him to be held responsible for the child I then had? Most particularly if he made it crystal clear that he absolutely did not want said child? No, no, and more no.

I do think the ideal solution is for a relatively foolproof male birth control device, but it won't be happening any time soon. And until it does, I cannot imagine why men must be forced to be parents when they dont' want to be.

No one here has addressed the adoption thing... what is different about a man declaring he does not want a child, and a woman giving her child up for adoption? Why can't HE be allowed to do that? Where is the difference? And why isn't it the best option for an irresponsible cad to give up being a father, if he's going to suck at it and resent it?

------------------
Stoidela

Women shirk responsibilty? Huh. That's not acceptable where I come from.
My ex husband left me 5 days before our son was born. The last (and only) time he saw him was at his first birthday and he virtually ignored him.
All these years, he has not ONCE asked about our son. I would get child support very sporadically. He would quit his job or get himself fired to avoid helping me out. I had to go on welfare (not on it anymore...i worked my butt off to get off it). *i* am the one clothing him, feeding him, making sure he has a roof over his head. *I* was there when I found out our son is autistic. *I* am the one making sure he gets help for that.*I* was the one there when he spent the night in the hospital in an oxygen tent. You get the picture.
WI sent him to court to make him start paying support. He decided that since he has to pay, he wants to see our son. He can't drive up here because his drivers license was taken away. He asked his mom if she'd come here and get our son and bring him to him. She refused. She told him that he wasn't there for him for 8 years and if he started seeing him now he'd destroy our son (he has a history of coming and going as he pleases with out regards for anyones feelings but his own. I didn't know that before I married him). I agree with her. i want him to stay away.
Now, suppose *I* left the 2 of them 5 days after I gave birth. Suppose I didn't come into contact with them at all for 8 years. i was out cavorting, doing as i pleased and leaving him to raise him. Now suppose I decided that I wanted to see our son. do you think society would accept that? NO WAY! I've heard of stories of just that...people would comment about how unfit she was and dare she think she can just come in out of the blue and expect everything to be all right!
I will be DAMNED if he will father a child and not have anything to do with raising it, then think it's ok to come over here and see him just because he suddenly decided to. He lost that priveledge when he left. But on the same token, if he gets away with not paying support, he is getting permission to be irresponsible. And that's what he did...i found out he fathered 4 other child after he left. And no...he never told me that he didn't want kids. he told me he wanted a lot of kids and when we found out i was pregnant I thought he was more excited than I was. To this day I have no clue as to why he left. We never fought...never had a disagreement...nothing! Even if all that didn't happen to me, you'd never convince me that the man should be able to not be responsible.

------------------
MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!

maryanne - you must be a really strong person for being able to go through all that and still have some sanity left. I commend you. =)

your story reminded me that no one has pointed out yet that, even with current laws, men still are able to (and do) shirk their respibilities as fathers.

I know of at least two fathers who refuse to pay child support, even though it is court ordered (for the record, neither of these men were *forced* to become parents or were tricked into fatherhood). In both cases, the man works "under the table" so that his wages can not be garnished and the court thinks he does not work and therefore can not pay. he gets the carefree lifestyle - his child gets screwed.

I know, me knowing two jerks doesn't mean make this type of irresponsibility a fact. but I am willing to bet that there are more where those two came from.

oh yah, one more thing - stoidela said, "However, had I been a different sort of woman, a more stupid one, a more manipulative one, I could have allowed myself to become pregnant through irresponsibility." so, are you saying that when you did get pregnant you were a different, stupid, manipulative and irresponsible woman?

Excuse me, but just where is the baby supposed to be in all of this? The baby has rights too and you aren't considering any of those rights!

sorry, but that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard in my life (ok, I've heard stupider, but I'm going for dramatic effect here).

If a man is going to take chances and have sex, he (just like the woman) must be prepared to deal with the consequences, be it pregnany, std's, or whatever. He is perfectly capable of taking measures to avoid these things (in other words, he can use a condom) (and yes, I know condoms fail, but not that often).

Giving men the chance to bow out of fatherhood and financial responsibility does not sound like a good idea to me. They are just as responsible for the pregnancy and the baby as the woman is. It took two people to create that baby. Why should men be able to completely avoid this responsibility simply by claiming that they don't want to be a father? Sorry, but if you don't want to be a father (or mother) then you ought to be more careful about sex. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. It's not fair to shove all the responsibility, both financial and otherwise, on the mother simply because the man decides he doesn't want to have kids.

Also, a child needs a father in their life. Allowing the father to disclaim fatherhood would do a great disservice to the child. (I know that many fathers already flake out of their childrens' lives, but I feel that what you have suggested would only cause it to occur more often).


I think that, rather than discouraging women from getting pregnant or from having the baby, the measure you have suggested would simply encourage men to be irresponsible. After all, under your system of things, there would be no consequences for their actions. They would get off scott-free and all the burden would be on the woman.

You have NO idea how queasy it makes me to agree, even a little, with Stoidela, but she may have a valid point. (see "people hunting" thread)

I've seen many women (especially younger women) have an "oops" as a way to get a guy to stay with her or marry her. Happened a lot in my HS, but I do admit to being born in sort of a "white trash" town (IMHO). Not fair to him, her, or especially the child! Kids are far too precious to be used as bargaining chips but immature, manipulative, pseudo-grownups...

I hope the male birth control pill comes out SOON! Then men can have some control over this sort of thing and then the argument will be moot.
Also, I agree totally with Stoidela that only a woman should have the final say over whether or not she has an abortion. I realize there are many issues to cover in this thread, I don't want a pro-choice vs anti-choice debate opening in this thread, so if you disagreeon this point, fine, just don't respond to this part of the post, ok?

FYI on where *I'm* coming from- I'm due June 22 (but pray for sooner please!), happily married, and this baby was lovingly planned by both of us.

Off to go swimming...if anyone laughs at me in my maternity suit I'm gonna thwack them!

PR

Maryann:

Wow. Your husband is an absolute prick, isn't he? I'm familiar with the breed - my mother raised 5 daughters pretty much alone, 2 husbands bailing late in the game.

This is obviously a hot topic for you. I'd just like to reiterate that I am not recommending or suggesting that men can come and go as they please, anymore than women do or can or should. Only that men be given a comparable opportunity to opt out of parenthood early in the game, just as women have.

Your husband was an ass, and under my scenario, he would not be let off the hook. You were married, you both wanted kids, he didn't decide to bail until the birth or damn near. Too late.

Yepitsme:

I did not mean to lump all those attritbutes together. I was unquestionably stupid and irresponsible and foolish. I knew better, but like many (most?) kids, I was convinced I was somehow immune to such things happening to me. Duh. I was not manipulative, however.

------------------
Stoidela

to Stoidela

Quote
I do think the ideal solution is for a relatively foolproof male birth control device, but it won't be happening any time soon. And until it does, I cannot imagine why men must be forced to be parents when they dont' want to be.

It would appear to me that there is, in fact, a completely foolproof method of male contraception. As a matter of fat, it works for women, too, and requires no equipment or supplies. This is commonly known as abstinence.

I realize that this would interfere with people's rights to whatever pleasure they desire, while requiring the rest of our society to bear the consequences, but I think that this would be a simple and elegant solution.

I am a male, who in his younger days exposed himself to the risk of unplanned pregnancy, but escaped by good fortune. By way of background, I also do not believe in any abortion except those in cases of rape and danger to the mother's life. I believe that aborting a baby, which I feel is a person, no matter what age, for a moment of pleasure should be considered murder.

Please excuse me if this post doesn't come out as planned, this is my first time.

Jvanhorn:

Well, it was only a matter of time before someone jumped in from this angle.

Actually, abstinance is not foolproof: it requires that people actually practice it. Which, aside from a small percentage of the population, will never, ever, ever happen. Never. Ever. Not ever.


Never.


Aside from hunger, sex is the strongest drive we experience, and being the weak-willed, pleasure-loving, self-indulgent (in other words, perfectly normal) species that we are, we will always be driven to satisfy that drive. Sure, a teeny-tiny percentage of people don't care, a larger, yet still tiny percentage have very strong wills and will wait forever if necessary, a slughtly larger percentage will wait a long time, then give in, and everyone else will have at it.

This being the case, we must find and implement the most effective means possible of preventing unwanted pregnancy.

And if you consider abortion the murder of innocent children, then you should not make an exception in cases of rape. Children conceived in rape are just as innocent as children conceived in love or lust.

Just as a matter of curiosity, since I do not feel as you do and have always had a hard time understanding it, may I ask: at one point does a fetus become a person? How many cells must it have before it is a person? must they begine to differentiate into actual organs and body parts, or will a blastocyst do?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious about your thinking on this. I've seen footage of a fertilized egg, as I'm sure you have, and there is nothing remotely person-like about it to my eyes. Given time and the correct conditions, it will certianly become a person eventually, but the fertilized egg is not a person.

And frankly, from my point of view, it doesn't qualify as a real person until it has reached a stage of development that would permit it to live outside the mother's womb if it had to.

But again, I'm curious about your thinking on the subject.



------------------
Stoidela

As I see it, discussing the man's or the woman's options AFTER she becomes pregnant is the root of the problem with this discussion. Once a bad situation is created, there is very rarely a fair and ideal way to clean up the mess. That is life. When you screw up (no pun intended) there are consequences, and they are not limited to your own little space in the world. Virtually every mistake we make, every bad decision, has an effect on other people. If you want everything to be fair and just, then walk on that path from the beginning. Don't rob the liquor store and then complain about unfair sentencing. It puts you in a bad position to argue. If you are not prepared to have a child, don't have sex! I absolutely refuse to buy the argument that it is some sort of travesty if a man who doesn't want a baby has to refrain from sex. I have absolutely no pity in this regard. It is akin to saying, "I stole the money because I REALLY wanted to buy a motorcycle, and because I REALLY wanted it, you should excuse my theft". Hardly. You say that a man's only option is to not have sex. You're right. So what? That is his option. It makes absolutely no difference how many options someone else has.
And, while I certainly don't intend to male-bash here, I would like to point out that it is very likely that giving the man the option to legally bail would result in more father-less children and destitute single mothers. Why do I feel confident in saying this? Because if woman were chosing to abort or adopt and the father's of these children had any interest in the future of these children, they would be demanding their rights to the children. It is a very rare thing that a woman decides to give up a baby for adoption and the father jumps in saying that he wants the child. It is my experience that men are generally quite relieved to be free of their responsibility and I don't think they need any further encouragement to do so.


------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Lucky:

But what of the many married couples who do not want children ever (for any one of many reasons)? Should they have to be celibate for life?

I think in this society we need to strike a balance between those that think of sex as a totally spiritual thing and a mere appetite. In a healthy marriage (or any other relationship) it is usually somewhere in between.

Surgical sterilization is an option of course, but that is not foolproof! My dear husband has a work associate who did just that and now has a child. (Yes, they tested for paternity and it is his!) They did not want kids because of a genetic problem of theirs. Luckily, the child is okay. And they did not want to abort- they just wanted not to conceive in the first place.

MaryAnnQ, your story made me go though a half box of tissues. I admire your strength and love for your son. For what it's worth, my thoughts and prayers are with you. What a woman!

PR (still pregnant...and the air conditioning is on the fritz till Tuesday! Yikes!!)

We went all through this on the old board a few months ago, and I should KNOW better than to jump in again. ::sigh::

There's an old saying about how you gotta pay the piper if you wanna call the tune. You wanna have sex? Great, but be prepared to pay the consequences, even if they aren't what you wanted. That's what being grownup is all about. That's what accepting responsibility is all about.

Y'know, the REASON that sex is such a strong drive is because of babies.

Once you've had sex with someone, and made a baby, you've got consequences to deal with. Mom didn't make that baby all by herself, y'know? Biology being what it is she's the one who decides whether to have the baby or abort it. If a man doesn't like that idea, that's kinda tough. Life is tough, and life is full of consequences of our actions -- or the actions of others around us that affect us -- that we have to deal with, whether we like them or not, and whether we would have chosen them or not.

I have very little use for any man who fathers a child and doesn't live up to that responsibility, and no, I have no personal experience with that. Well, except I've thrown a deadbeat dad or two out of my office when he's come to see if there's some legal loophole out of paying now that he's been caught and is years behind in support.

Grow up, people. Think of someone other than yourselves. The whole concept proposed -- being able to walk away without accepting any responsibility -- is selfish and immature. It's a reflection of the "Me" generation, and it is both disappointing and repulsive to think that someone would even make the argument.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Thank you all for your support. I'm doing ok. I so glad that my family was there for me. My mom babysat while I went back to school and still babysits while I work. They let me move back home until I'm on my feet again. because of bills that he stuck me with (the bill collectors don't know where he is so they bug me), it took a long time. I'm happy to say that i will be out soon. I console myself with the fact that i don't live there for free (I pay rent, utilities, babysitting, etc.).
I'm lucky, too in that his family is on my side. I see a lot of them because my sister married his brother (he's the total opposite of my ex). They find out his job/paying support status and report him.
Sorry that i went on like that. I guess that I wanted to see in writing that things are looking up for me!

------------------
MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!

Melin -

Grow up? Selfish and immature?

Actually, the concept being discussed is more mature than our culture's current take on reproductive rights. What's culturally immature is dragging out an old saw about paying the piper when faced with a new question.

When two people willingly engage in safe sex and one accidentally gets pregnant, the pregnant one is the only one with choices. This is the inequity that Stoidela is attempting to address.

Obviously, what we need is the most effective birth control device ever concieved: a four-part no-carbon-required form completed, signed by both parties, witnessed, notarized and on file in the district courthouse prior to the unlocking of either chastity belt.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she can choose to avoid pregnancy and motherhood via abortion. (I believe in a woman's right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.) This is right and good. But the father cannot stop her if he wants to become a father. This is also right and good.

I will never support abortion. I think it is the most cruel, coldest "choice" to make, and to me is the most disgusting form of murder on such a helpless human. If a woman does not want the baby, adoption is the best answer, I say this because I am adopted, I was placed in a good home with loving parents. My biological mother knew she could not properly care for me, and gave me away to a couple that could not make children of their own. I got to go to school, make friends, grow up and get married, and now I have a baby son of my own. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the "choice" to abort me. I still do not know who my biological parents are, but they gave me the greatest gift of all... life.

But what if she chooses to keep the baby? Can the father force her to abort it if he doesn't want it? No, and he shouldn't be able to. Yet SHE is able to force HIM to be a father even if he doesn't want it. If nothing else, she can force him to be financially responsible. And I think that blows.

A woman cannot force a man to be a father, she can only make him pay for child support. There is not a thing wrong with that, if you are willing to have sex, you are also willing to take responsibility for anything resulting from sex. Kind of like robbing a bank, you are willing to face the consequence of prison for that, which is why most of us are not bank robbers. Sure, sex feels great, but it was never intended as a form of entertainment, humans made it that way. Its true function is to procreate, and nothing more, so dont be suprised if pregnancy is a result. The only time I would think it is unfair for the man is if the woman (assuming she is some conniving trash, looking for an easy life) intentionally tried to get pregnant by him, say by means of drugs, so as to collect a check from some poor guy. (that goes both ways)

Stoidela:

I feel that fertilized egg is entitled to the same consideration as a near-term baby. I hardly think that because I, at one point in my development, did not resembled the person that I am now, that I was eligible to be killed. There are plenty of circumstances to cause unintended abortions, without looking for more to make our lives more convenient. I understand that you see an inconsistency in my opinion in cases of rape. It is my opinion, though, that the woman did not make the choice to have sex in that case, and therefore should not bear the consequences unless she is willing. It goes without saying that the father is not likely to provide for his child.

Yes, I will agree that the sex drive is one of our most powerful and basic instincts. But the control over our basic instincts is what sets us apart from other beasts. If you can control yourself from having sex on the floor in a busy supermarket, you should be able to further control yorself, enough to think about the fact that sex means babies.

I don't really disagree with your basic premise, that things are not equal for both sexes in the determination of what happens to the results of a sexual encounter. What you propose may indeed be a fine idea. But there are enough babies born now to people who know to use protection, but don't because they just can't be in control of themselves. I hardly think that these people will take the time to fill out a form to indicate their preferences before jumping in the sack.

Men have less choices? Then let them take more care. Why is it the woman who seems any more to be the one to carry the condoms? Why can't these men act like men, and take responsibility for their own action, or inaction?

The only ones I feel sorry for in these cases are the unwanted children. I know, that could be turned against my arguments concerning abortion. But I hardly feel that we are competent to guess which unwanted child is going to be a valuable addition to society, and which is not.

Prairie Rose;
Married people? What are you talking about? The question was if a man fathers a child he doesn't want, should there be a legal means for him to abandon all respnsibility for it. Are you suggesting that this be permitted within the context of marriage? "Well OK, Honey, I'll feed the first two but you're on your own with this third one".
Many people on this thread have mentioned the scenario wherein the man is manipulated somehow by the woman and tricked into becoming a father. Lying and manipulating people is reprehensible, but people do it. This is a good reason to be VERY CAREFUL about who you decide to jump in the sack with.
We all make our choices. The consequenses of bad choices most often really suck. Because of this, it is good policy to think things through before you take action. If you are not ready to live up to the possible consequences, don't do it.
Sometimes I get so fed up with our society. If people would put half the effort into fulfilling their responsibilities as they do into trying to avoid them we wouldn't have these problems.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Neobican:

. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the "choice" to abort me.

Nor would you ever know you hadn't, because you would never have existed, so there's really no comparison, so who cares?

Melin:

Women shirk responsibilty? Huh. That's not acceptable where I come from.

Again, who cares what is and isn't "acceptable" where you come from? It happens. Susan Smith ring any bells for you? Hell, we don't even need to get that drastic--I can point to my sister, who at one point signed over custody of her 7-year-old son to his father, so she could leave town with no responsibilities with her drug-dealing boyfriend. It happens. Women are not made perfect through the process of pregnancy, and I've seen you post long enough, Melin, to know that you know that.

Jvanhorn:

By way of background, I also do not believe in any abortion except those in cases of rape and danger to the mother's life. I believe that aborting a baby, which I feel is a person, no matter what age, for a moment of pleasure should be considered murder.

So, following your thought through to its logical implications, you are willing to state that you favor life imprisonment or execution both for mothers who have abortions and doctors who perform them? (I would assume an abortion would be considered first degree murder.)

Melin:

I have very little use for any man who fathers a child and doesn't live up to that responsibility, and no, I have no personal experience with that. Well, except I've thrown a deadbeat dad or two out of my office when he's come to see if there's some legal loophole out of paying now that he's been caught and is years behind in support.

I assume you are equally hostile towards deadbeat moms?

Grow up, people. Think of someone other than yourselves. The whole concept proposed -- being able to walk away without accepting any responsibility -- is selfish and immature. It's a reflection of the "Me" generation, and it is both disappointing and repulsive to think that someone would even make the argument.

I think there are moral middle grounds predicated around the idea that we as modern humans are capable of controlling our reproductive activities and that it is immoral to force one to assume the mantle of parenthood against his orher wishes. To state that men must either abstain from sex or be made parents against their wishes is silly. Reproductive choice and freedom is either available to all, or it is not a right.

consider this though - who has to carry the baby in their womb for nine months and then give it up to a stranger if they choose adoption? who has to go through a major surgery and deal with the emotinal and/or physical scars of having an abortion if they choose to give up the baby? who has to raise the baby for at least 18 years if they choose to keep the baby? the mother - she has no choice - the baby is INSIDE her and she can not simply decide that she doesn't want to deal with motherhood and give up her claims to it. No matter what she chooses, it will effect her.

The day I see discussion of the emotional scars on the male when the female opts for an abortion is the day I'll seriously consider this as an argument.

We all hear about how traumatic a decision it is for the female, and I don't dispute that. But, just as the male gets screwed out of any real input into the decision-making process, he also gets completely shoved to the side when the discussion turns to how painful the decision was. Think of all the times you've heard this topic discussed, and tell me if you've ever once heard the male side of the story - except, of course, for the typical male-bashing, stereotypical, "Yo, man, I tol' dat bitch to go get an abo'shun" crap you see in child-support propoganda.

That said... I don't think the male should be allowed to claim irresponsibility after the fact. I do, however, think he should be able to before the fact. By that, I mean concrete, documented evidence that a sexual relationship has been entered into, in which the male refuses any responsibilty (as well as any paternal rights) in the event of a pregnancy, and in which the female explicity agrees that she's entering the relationship, accepting those terms.

Don't get me wrong. People need to be responsible. But there is a gender-based discrimination in this area; the male effectively has no rights. Remember that the support-paying parent (regardless of gender) must continue payments, even if the support-receiving parent illegaly refuses to allow court-ordered visitation, or spends that money on heroin, or the kids still starve anyway because they're using that check to buy stereo equipment... and then remember who wins most custody cases.

Best bet, really, is to just keep your pants on...


------------------
~jon

Now there's an intelligent way to get single mothers off the welfare rolls and to reduce the number of impoverished children.

You are basically giving men permission to screw around without responsibility. To hop into the sack with as many women as they can get without protection, because after all, he can have all that hot sweaty fun and then make the choice not to contribute a penny toward supporting a child that may result from the union.

Yep, this will help clear up those welfare lines, you betcha. This will ensure that little tummies of those whose daddy had the "right" to shirk his responsibility, won't go to bed hungry.

It's not a perfect world. Everyone is not as responsible as you are, Stoidela. It's a sad fact that the children are the one's who will suffer the most. However, I think your plan sucks from yet another point of view. I, as a taxpayer, am not too thrilled at the concept of paying even higher taxes to support the children whose fathers won't. Enough of my hard earned money already goes to support the welfare programs that are picking up the slack from the low-life fathers who have turned their backs on their financial duties.

Are you willing to pay increased taxes to help raise the kids whose father made the choice not to contribute? I sure as hell don't want to.

I could not care less if the woman has 100 choices and the man has none. Life ain't fair and it certainly isn't equally divided in any area. (Should we get into glass ceiling or equal pay issues?)

If two people have sex there are certain responsibilities that come with it. The woman has the greater responsibility in that she must accept that consequences that might come with a pregnancy, whether than means raising the child, abortion, or adoption. None are easy choices. The man has the responsibility to contribute towards raising the child that may result from the sexual encounter, or at least provide monetary support.

If neither are willing to accept their responsibilities, then for the sake of any future babies and for the sake of my wallet, they should keep their legs closed and their pants zipped up.

If that is too much to ask and they can't control themselves any better than a couple of pigs in heat, then for hellsake, get the "snip".



------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

Hey Phil, go back and reread the post I wrote and then apologize to me for the misattribution, huh?

And yes, I have no use for ANYone who shirks their responsibility to their child, whether male or female, married or single. However, basic biology says that it is the woman who gets pregnant and therefore has the greater choice about whether that child is coming in to the world. Biederman, Stoidela, you think that's unfair, go complain to Mother Nature. What's also "unfair" is the fact that it is so easy for a man to disappear from a child's life, and shirk that responsibility, and less so for women to do so. I understand that there are exceptions to every rule, but the numbers bear me out. Yes, there are "deadbeat" moms out there, but check out the statistics before you come back and tell me about them; the most recent report from the L.A. County child support enforcement division of the District Attorneys office suggests that there are -- and I'm generalizing this figure because I don't have it directly in front of me and am going by recall -- something like 999 deadbeat dads for every 1 deadbeat mom.

Everything in life carries risk, Phil. You could die in your own bathtub, y'know? When you get in the car you assume the risk of accident. You take all the precautions you can against it, and you do the mental cost-benefit analysis and figure that the odds are with you, and you drive to work, or school, or wherever. You go swimming at the ocean you assume the risk of an undertow, or cramps, or the jellyfish or the shark. Same thing with everything we do. Why should sex be any different?

-Melin



------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Jvanhorn:

I understand that you see an inconsistency in my opinion in cases of rape. It is my opinion, though, that the woman did not make the choice to have sex in that case, and therefore should not bear the consequences unless she is willing.

This attitude slays me. It lays bare the truth underlying your concern for the "child" - which is horseshit - and shows what your true issue is: those sluts that open their legs! If they are going to willingly have sex outside of marriage, let them PAY THE PRICE! An unwanted pregnancy carried to term is evidently the punishment such women deserve for being so wanton. "You CHOSE to have sex WILLINGLY? Then no way are you going to abort that precious innocent life within you! Oh, you were FORCED? Oh, okay, go ahead and kill that thing growing in your belly."

The fetus is innocent, it is life, it is human...the means by which it came into being don't matter IF your real concern is to protect life. What you are saying here is the only life worth protecting is life that came about because the woman wanted sex. So your claims of wanting to protect innocent life don't wash. You want to punish what you perceive to be slutty women.

And as for men taking more care...in a perfect world, that might be true. But we all live in THIS world, and in THIS world, the woman is the one who ends up pregnant. She should do what is necessary to protect HERSELF if she doesn't want to be. That's what I did.

Lucky:

This is a good reason to beVERY CAREFUL about who you decide to jump in the sack with.

And how would one be very careful about this? It's easier to be careful about avoiding diseases...at least you can ask to see an AIDS test or inspect the person's body for suspicious sores. But dishonesty and manipulativeness don't reveal themselves until it is too late, as a rule.

PLdennison:



Diane:

You are basically giving men permission to screw around without responsibility. To hop into the sack with as many women as they can get without protection, because after all, he can have all that hot sweaty fun and then make the choice not to contribute a penny toward supporting a child that may result from the union.

Men who want to do that do it already. Except the way things are now, some women think they can change that by getting pregnant. Stupid women, but they believe that anyway. Perhaps if the law didn't let her, SHE might think twice.

I give you as evidence all the "deadbeat dads" in the NBA. There was alot of press abotut hem last year. Some of them are total assholes who have fathered multiple children with one woman, and have taken off long after the fact. Screw them, they are completely out of line and should be dealt with harshly. But what about the guys who blew into town, took the babe up on her offer, and now have her knocking at the door for some of those basketball millions for her and her poor baby? It's a story that happens every day, and if I was a man it would righteously piss me off.

Enough of my hard earned money already goes to support the welfare programs that are picking up the slack from the low-life fathers who have turned their backs on their financial duties. Are you willing to pay increased taxes to help raise the kids whose father madethe choice not to contribute? I sure as hell don't want to.

Ya know, I get really sick of hearing this. It's such a bunch of crap. Do you have any idea how much of your hard earned money goes to welfare of the kind you are objecting to? A few cents, maybe a couple of bucks. The anger and outrage over our taxes going to single mothers is so completely out of proportion to what it actually costs that it's infuriating. If you don't like paying for welfare, worry about the welfare that is REALLY costing you, in the form of corporate welfare, and entitlements to people who dont' need them.

It's easy to focus our anger on the poor, the uneducated, the irresponsible welfare moms. They have no power base. They don't contribute to the politicians coffers, and most of them probably dont' vote. So let's go after them! But it's an illusion. Welfare is a truly minute portion of the federal and state budgets.

So yeah, I'm happy to have my taxes go to illiterate, unemployable moms who were stupid but human and have now brought children into this world. I'd like to see more money spent on programs to help these women and their kids.



------------------
Stoidela

Diane:

I'm gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:

What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:

"I don't want this kid. I can't pay for it, I didn't plan on it, and I don't want it in my life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it ain't me. Bye!"

And a MAN saying the same thing?

Hmmmm?



------------------
Stoidela

Melin, I don't believe I misattributed you; I quoted both you and Neobican in the same post. Whoops--found it--that was yepitsme, not you. Sincere sorriness.

Yes, there are "deadbeat" moms out there, but check out the statistics before you come back and tell me about them; the most recent report from the L.A. County child support enforcement division of the District Attorneys office suggests that there are -- and I'm generalizing this figure because I don't have it directly in front of me and am going by recall -- something like 999 deadbeat dads for every 1 deadbeat mom.

I'm going to trust your recollection of the figures as an attorney, but suggest that there may be a greater number of deadbeat moms and that there is some enforcement bias that skews the figures slightly. Slightly And let's not forget the recent rash of young mothers dumping their newborn infants in trash cans, something fathers obviously don't have the opportunity to do and a state of affairs much sadder than nonpayment of support.

Everything in life carries risk, Phil. You could die in your own bathtub, y'know? When you get in the car you assume the risk of accident. You take all the precautions you can against it, and you do the mental cost-benefit analysis and figure that the odds are with you, and you drive to work, or school, or wherever.

So if you are in an accident, are you morally required to lay there and die, because, hey, oh well, that's the risk you take? Or are you permitted to take steps to alter the situation?

You go swimming at the ocean you assume the risk of an undertow, or cramps, or the jellyfish or the shark. Same thing with everything we do. Why should sex be any different?

Part of the beauty of life is that we are not always required to accept only one choice among sets of consequences.

Realistically, the only thing a woman can "force" on a man if she chooses to have a baby that he doesn't want is some financial support to the child. (And good luck getting it.) Well, sexual intercourse is about having babies, folks. You would think we'd have gotten used to this idea by now.

Someone suggested that all men have to do is abstain to avoid this, and the reply was that abstinence is pretty much impossible, at least for most of the people some of the time. I propose that there are plenty of ways of obtaining a reasonable amount of sexual gratification without risking pregnancy. So, really, all men have to do avoid any risk of an unwanted child is to avoid intercourse. If they can't even do that, the small risk of someone coming after them for child support is just one they will have to take.

Stoidela's argument is that women can have all the intercourse they want, and if they get pregnant they can "just" have an abortion. On what planet is this a safe, easy, casual choice with no physical, financial, or emotional risks or consequences? She has to kill a baby to "reject motherhood." That hardly compares with signing a piece of paper saying "I'm outta here."

Stoidela's argument is that women can have all the intercourse they want, and if they get pregnant they can "just" have an abortion. On what planet is this a safe, easy, casual choice with no physical, financial, or emotional risks or consequences? She has to kill a baby to "reject motherhood." That hardly compares with signing a piece of paper saying "I'm outta here."

This is where the "oh well, tough luck!" argument applies. Men can't help it that just saying no to parenthood isn't enormous hassle and burden to them that it is to women. So therefore they don't get to say no at all?

I sure wish someone would answer my adoption question and quit saying "keep your dick in yoru pants or tough!". We've heard it already.

And by the way, in case you missed it, I have actually had an abortion. And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman's experience, I can tell you that for me, it was not the huge trauma that you would have it be. It was physically uncomfortable for about 10 minutes. No emotional scarring, no bad dreams, no regrets years later, no nothing. I didn't even have cramps afterwards! It was just an enormous relief.



------------------
Stoidela

I'm gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:
What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:
"I don't want this kid. I can't pay for it, I didn't plan on it, and I don't want it in my life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it ain't me. Bye!"
And a MAN saying the same thing?
Hmmmm?
------------
Stoidela

If you were paying attention, you would have seen that your question has already been answered by me and a number of other posters.

Again -

There are certain risks that a man and woman take when they have sex. The woman takes the risk that she may become pregnant and have to make a choice to raise the baby, abort, or give it up for adoption. The father takes the risk that he may impregnate the woman and have to face the result of her decision, including financial support.

In answer to your question, "What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal (BTW - There are MAJOR legal differences) differences between a woman saying. . . . ." the answer is simple. It was the *man’s* decision to take *his* part of the risk, now he must face the consequences that came from *his* decision. She is dealing with the results of *her* own risk. It is biological differences that make the results different between the two. You may not think they are equal or fair, but life isn’t equal or fair.

Let me turn things around and ask you your own question using a different scenario:

What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a man saying, upon the abortion of his wanted child:

"I want this kid. I can pay for it, I didn't plan on it but I will accept it, and I do want it in my life. Here, mom, you can’t abort. Carry this child to term and give it to me, someone who cares."

So, according to you, which is it? Does the man have rights to not accept his child but no rights if he wants the baby? You’re talking out of both sides of your face.

And by the way, in case you missed it, I have actually had an abortion. And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman's experience, I can tell you that for me, it was not the huge trauma that you would have it be. It was physically uncomfortable for about 10 minutes. No emotional scarring, no bad dreams, no regrets years later, no nothing. I didn't even have cramps afterwards! It was just an enormous relief.

Nine years ago, I sat in the abortion clinic filling out the paperwork to have an abortion. After talking about all of my options with the father, I made a personal decision to have the baby. Thank God for the 48 hour waiting period or I would have aborted that day. I now have a wonderful 8 year old son.

Being inside that clinic, making the choices that I had to make, was extremely emotional and traumatic even though I didn’t follow through with the abortion. I know that had I followed through, I would carry that decision with me for life. I have a few close friends who have gone through this experience. Although their abortions were the best choice, and they realize this, there are still some emotional scars that will never disappear.

Your callus attitude is just what the pro-lifers like to quote when they preach their "abortion birth control" accusations. It is the type of attitude pro-lifers like to paint of women who get abortions when in reality, it is an emotional, traumatic time in their life.

If you were paying attention, you would have seen that your question has already
been answered by me and a number of other posters.

Again -

There are certain risks that a man and woman take when they have sex. The
woman takes the risk that she may become pregnant and have to make a choice to
raise the baby, abort, or give it up for adoption. The father takes the risk that he
may impregnate the woman and have to face the result of her decision, including
financial support.

That isn't really the answer that I'm looking for. All you are doing is stating the situation as it currently exists. Neither you or anyone has yet JUSTIFIED IT. And you apparantly dont' even see the gross injustice of it: she gets three decisions, he gets to be at the mercy of hers. That's just the way it is. Yeah, I know that, but WHY?????????????????????????????

I think it's because we've all simply be trained to think that it's ok and no one has ever really stopped to examine the injustice and illogic of it.

You may not think they are equal or fair, but
life isn’t equal or fair.

But we can work towards making it MORE so, can't we? Isn't that what our system of laws is all about? Creating more fairness, justice, balance? Protecting everyone's rights as much as possible?

What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a man
saying, upon the abortion of his wanted child:

"I want this kid. I can pay for it, I didn't plan on it but I will accept it, and I do want it
in my life. Here, mom, you can’t abort. Carry this child to term and give it to me,
someone who cares."

So, according to you, which is it? Does the man have rights to not accept his child
but no rights if he wants the baby? You’re talking out of both sides of your face.

This is easy. This is where biology really does count and makes a difference. In order for him to do this, she would be required to put her body through something she isnt' willing to put it through. And each of us has absolute dominion over our own bodies. Period.

Your callus attitude is just what the pro-lifers like to quote when they preach their
"abortion birth control" accusations. It is the type of attitude pro-lifers like to paint
of women who get abortions when in reality, it is an emotional, traumatic time in
their life.

So I should fake things I don't feel so as not to give the pro-lifers ammunition? I know alot of women who have had abortions, and the no-muss, no-fuss, no-regrets types far outnumber the anguished, tormented, it-was-the-most-horrible-experience-of-my-life women. (As a matter of fact, I dont' know any of the latter. Some women are a little sad, but still no regrets. Even among those who have since become mothers. And excellent, loving mothers.)

For those of us who know ourselves, know what we want, what we are willing to do, to tolerate, to give, abortion is a no-brainer. I aborted at 7 weeks. I never think about "my baby that I killed". And it's unfortunate that this offends you, but it happens to be the truth. I never wanted to be a mother, even for a second. So there was no sorrow in cancelling my one opportunity.

------------------
Stoidela

Phil, thank you for your sincere apology. I don't mind being argued with when it's my own words, but don't want to have to defend someone else's words as well as my own. :-)

Your comments about choices in dealing with the consequences of the risks we take strike me as better applied to the abortion debate. (Let's not argue abortion here, since we both know that we are on opposite sides of that debate. :-)) Seems to me in the debate at hand what Stoidela is saying is that the man should have the choice of not dealing with the consequences at all, but of simply walking away.

The pregnancy is the potential consequence of the sex; nobody should be able to just walk away from it by saying "I didn't want it!" Nobody wants the broken leg or broken neck either, but you can't just walk away from it by saying that you don't want it, you have to deal with it. If you aren't prepared to accept the (however slight) risk that something is going to bring you consequences you don't want to deal with, then don't risk it. Be mature enough to accept the consequences and deal with them if they do happen. And "deal with them" doesn't mean just walking away and leaving your offspring to fend for itself. I stand by my opinion that it would be a selfish, gutless thing to do, a path walked only by the lowest of the low.

Incidentally, as an aside (and not as a troll!) I'm curious about something. This isn't directed to Phil; I don't want to attribute opinions to him that I'm not sure that he has! <g>

So manny times in discussions of monogamy and of evolution, etc., we've heard comments to the effect that, "naturally," men want to spread their seed around and impregnate as manny women as possible (thus explaining a perceived male tendency to, um, sleep around), versus the woman's desire to keep the man around and have him help provide for their child. Both gender's actions are supposedly spurred by evolution and a desire to populate the species. Thus, arguably, a man has maybe half an hour (if that!) initially invested in any given seed that he plants, and perhaps each individual seed is not as important as is the idea of spreading it and lots of its friends around, but a woman has nine months invested before she gets to a single child, and realistically cannot expect to give birth to as manny children as a man can sire.

This is pure speculation, mind you, but wouldn't such a theory be consistent with a finding that MOST (not ALL) deadbeat parents are the dads? And that MOST of the single parents are moms? (Again, not all! I know about the anecdotal cases where the dad is single parent and the mom is the deadbeat, okay? But statistically the signigicantly greater numbers of single parents are moms and deadbeats are dads.) From such a standpoint, the male is most interested in spreading his seed as far and wide as possible, without necessarily giving thought to any individual seed, whereas the mom is most interested in the small number of children she gives birth to.

Just a passing thought.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Stoidela wrote:

{{{"I'm gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:

What is the logical, moral, ethical, motional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:

"I don't want this kid. I can't pay for it, I didn't plan on it, and I don't want it in my
life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it
ain't me. Bye!"

And a MAN saying the same thing?"}}}


Y'know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here for a minute. Putting biology aside (which is kinda foolish in a discussion like this), I will point out that, from a legal point of view, once that baby IS born the man and the woman are in the same position. She can give up her parental rights to it, but she can't necessarily eliminate her legal and financial obligations to it strictly on her own whim. If the father wants, he can take custody of the child (may have to have a court proceeding, but he can do it), and then the MOTHER will be paying child support, even if she was hoping to be able to give the kid up for adoption and never have to deal with it again.

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

Hrmmm ... my question is if a woman can choose NOT to parent a child by aborting her pregnancy, why can't a man choose NOT to parent a child by abaondoning the mother? some of you may say he can, but most courts would say otherwise. very interesting topic hahaha ... ethics and morales skew things sooo much don't ya think?

Personally i feel this is an decision that needs to be made on an individual perspective. I myself would never dream of such a thing (abondoning the mother of my child, unwanted or not) so that is all that matters to me. I could care less what others choose to do (until it starts affecting the lives of others ie the childs, OR making me have to pay higher taxes.) Needless to say if it get's to this point, something has to be done. Not by me however .. i'm a fence sitter

Melin:

And that sucks equally. I simply do not undrstand why if ONE parent wants to keep the kid, BOTH parents must.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried challenging this?



------------------
Stoidela

Stoidela;

I said that people ought to be VERY CAREFUL about who they jump in the sack with. You said that by the time one finds out the true nature of a person, it's usually too late. This is pretty much my point. If you're doing the matress mambo after a couple of weeks courtship, you clearly will not know enough to make a decision about that person's character. How about waiting several months, meeting the family, having them meet your family, etc, etc. Every time someone says, "I didn't know he/she was like that", I'd love to ask them how much time and effort they spent trying to find out what kind of person he or she was before they went at it. No doubt it was far less time than they spent swooning.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Lucky:

Think about how many women didn't know their true loves were into beating the shit out of them until after they got married.

hmm.



------------------
Stoidela

just wanted to respond to some hostility toward something I wrote.


"The day I see discussion of the emotional scars on the male when the female opts for an abortion is the day I'll seriously consider this as an argument.

We all hear about how traumatic a decision it is for the female, and I don't dispute that. But, just as the male gets screwed out of any real input into the decision-making process, he also gets completely shoved to the side when the discussion turns to how painful the decision was. Think of all the times you've heard this topic discussed, and tell me if you've ever once heard the male side of the story - except, of course, for the typical male-bashing, stereotypical, "Yo, man, I tol' dat bitch to go get an abo'shun" crap you see in child-support propoganda." - Jon


first of all, though I realize that legally the male has no real input in the process before the baby is born, in reality the male does have input. I am willing to bet that in many cases the decision to abort, to keep the baby, or to give the baby up for adoption is one that is made by both parents, or is at least discussed by both parents. I am also willing to bet that if a man vehemently argued for the baby to be kept so he could help raise it he would not go completely unheard. Again, I know this is not always the case and I don't contend that it is. But I have a hard time buying the idea that a man has absolutely no say in the matter.

And I do not think for a moment that the decision made won't affect both the man and the woman. That is not what I was trying to say. A child is a creation of both the parents, and any decision regarding its fate can and should involve and effect both parents. However, ultimately, due to the fact that the child is growing inside the mother's body, the final decision rests with her.



"And I'm sorry, I realize I'm not a woman, but for all of you who contest that a man doesn't feel it when a woman choses to give up, or abort, his baby, fuck you. That's as sexist a statement as they come. You have no clue what another person feels or believes, and its ridiculous that one would follow such a sterotype. Talk about ignorant." - Larsy

First of all, if that "fuck you" was directed at me....well...no thanks, I'll pass.

Again, I was NOT trying to say that the decision made does not affect the father-to-be. It does. However, there is no way on earth that a man can feel the SAME feelings as a woman does, or that it will affect him in the same way. When he has to go through the surgery and deal with the after-effects of it maybe he can claim the same feelings and scars. When a man can carry a baby in his body for nine months, and then go through the physical exertion/pain of labor, then I'll believe that.

Before you jump all over me and tell me how ignorant and sexist I am, let me again clarify that I am not saying the decision made does not affect the man. I am just saying that it can not possibly affect him in the same way it affects the woman. This is not to say that his pain/joy/fear/whatever is any less - it's just different.


(btw, Stoidela - I too had an abortion when I was younger. Not everyone is as passive about it as you. Though it does not haunt me, nor do I regret it, it did and does affect my life, though in subtle ways - just as any decision of that magnitude would impact my life. I don't think it's good for you to assume that just because something hasn't impacted your life at all that it won't/doesn't impact anyone else's)

anyway, this has been interesting, but I have the feeling it is simply another one of those arguments where each side has its fixed views and nothing the other anyone says or does will change those views. In other words, it's pointless to continue arguing (at least for me it is).

I don't think it's good for you to assume that just because
something hasn't impacted your life at all that it won't/doesn't impact anyone else's

And I didn't.

Here's the quote from me:

And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman's experience, I can tell you that for me,

------------------
Stoidela

ah....must have missed that part.

Sorry - been a long day/week/month/life =)

Stoidela wrote:

{{{And that sucks equally. I simply do not undrstand why if ONE parent wants to keep the kid, BOTH parents must.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried challenging this?}}}


We're not talking about "keeping" the kid, we're talking about accepting responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. This isn't some universe of "it feels good, I'm gonna do it, and I'm not going to account for anybody or anything that gets hurt as a result of it." The woman and the man BOTH made that baby. Both the woman and the man have a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to provide at least the basic necessities of life for that child.

As I said several posts back, the entire evolutionary point of sex (which was described by -- was it you? -- as the strongest natural urge or drive humans have, with the exception of hunger) is to make babies. You don't wanna run the risk of making a baby, don't have sex. If you think you're mature enough to have sex, then be mature enough to accept the possibility that you are going to have a child, and may run the risk that you have to abort, adopt out, or support that child. Your choice comes at the point BEFORE you conceive that child, not after. Whether you are male or female.

This attitude of "I can do whatever I want and shouldn't have to ever have to account for it" really pisses me off. It's the cause of a great deal of evil and sorrow in this world, and of TRUE injustice, not the "poor little whiny old me" scenario of the man who wanted to get laid and now doesn't want to pay child support that you have set forth. "I'm bored -- entertain me." "I'm horny, fuck me." "We did it together, but I don't want to have to deal with it so you deal with it, it's not my problem." Y'know what? I'd just as soon people like that didn't reproduce anyway.

-Melin


------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

You know what really pisses ME off? Kids being raised by people who don't really want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it. Kids being made to feel as though they are a burden instead of a joy. Kids coming into this world as a "price" someone has to "pay".

Like I mentioned earlier, Norplan for all the women at puberty, and licensing before you can have it removed!!

H

------------------
Stoidela

You know what really pisses ME off? Kids being raised by people who
don't really want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it.
Kids being made to feel as though they are a burden instead of a joy.
Kids coming into this world as a "price" someone has to "pay".

You do realize the difference between "raised by people who don't want to be doing it, resent it, and aren't very good at it" compared with "providing financial support", don't you?

If either parent decides to keep the baby, the other should be responsible to help support him financially. Afterall, there are two people who made this child. Two people should be responsible for taking care of it. I sure as hell didn't knock up the woman, why should my tax dollars be increased to cover additional public assistance programs that would come from the surge of deadbeat parents who are given the chance to back out of their duties.

Instead of the "Perhaps if the law didn't let her, SHE might think twice." mentality, why don't we tighten down the child support laws and make the MAN think twice. Same concept but a lot less damaging to the child and to the welfare system. Again, if this isn't an option the man can live with, he shouldn't take the risk.

(BTW Melin, you took the words right out of my mouth and made them sound so much better than I would have. Deadbeat parents are scum.)

Let's put a little twist on the topic. Say that a parent is given the right to turn his back on his responsibilities and then 10-15-20 years down the road after contributing nothing to the raising of this child, that parent decides that mid-life is kind of lonely. He wants to come back into the life of his kids. Then what? Does he get a new set of rights?


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius