Many years ago I started a GD thread titled Abortion For Men. My position was and remains: it is fundamentally unjust to give women (and I am a woman) the power to force fatherhood on a man against his will.
I have just recently learned that someone actually did bring a case, and that the underlying theory is virtually identical to mine. That’s the good part. The bad part is that the case was thrown out twice.
The National Center for Men is champion of the cause, and they have done a better job than I could of making the case.
They appealed, but the decision was upheld
Now they have a new case:
I’m very happy that the fight continues, however, because I believe that if we give men the right to refuse parenthood in the same way we give it to women, we will see a noticeable drop in unplanned pregnancies.
The debate is obvious, and since it’s been so many years and it’s actually being fought legally… I thought it was time to revisit it.
Abortion isn’t about contraception. Abortion is about a woman’s rights over her own body. That guy had his rights not to be a dad when he made the decision about using a condom.
If this argument wins it’s going to mean a lot more kids grow up in foster care instead of being raised by atleast one loving parent, or grow up in poverty barely making ends meet. Your basically telling perfectly loving and able mothers they should be striped of their kids so some cheap asshole can save a few dollars.
I had a run away dad. If the state of Michigan ever finds him he’s gonna be done. Bastard has more then 10 kids that I know about, maybe more.
Growing up times were very tough.
It takes two to tango and if you can’t own up to your 30 seconds of fun then you should be neutered.
Because of the women who use pregnancy as a tool or a trap with the knowledge that the law holds men responsible: they either get pregnant deliberately thinking it will tie a man to them, or go forward with the unexpected pregnancy because it will tie the man to them or because they know will be able to squeeze him for support. If women knew that they had no ability to force a man to do anything at all, they would think much harder about going forward with having children alone.
I have no doubt that this happens often… I wonder if there are any studies which actually show how often this happens. Of course, it would be hard to get sccurate numbers because such a study would rely on honest self-reporting, but it might give us a ballpark estimate.
I would have to say I don’t know enough about roe v wade, other than it’s two ways to cross a river, but I (male) believe that eventhough it was a concious decision for the man to have sex, that the woman was an equal partner in the act; assuming consent. The man should not be tied to the incident through a legal matter. I am sorry for anyone in the situation of being fatherless but it is moreso, in my oppinion, important for the woman to pick an appropriate mate than the male. I assume that the most previlant argument is on the basis of religion but that isn’t my dogma. I advocate choice in both aspects.
I’ve seen this debate several times on the SDMB and I’m always surprised by how many people actually find this position reasonable and just.
There will not be real equality on this issue because the reality of biology dictates there cannot be. Finding new ways to rephrase the argument won’t change that fact.
Men and women are equal in the decision to have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy only occurs within the body of women so from the discovery of pregnancy to it’s termination or culmination in birth the decision is the womans. After a birth a new person, the baby, has to be considered and cared for. The question is who is responsible for the care of this new member of society. We’ve reached the simplest and most obvious conclusion as a society. Those responsible
are the two people who made the first decision to have sex and risk reproduction contributing equally to the DNA of said child.
IMO there’s no way to grant what some mistakenly call equal reproductive rights for men without seriously upsetting the balance we’ve reached and creating more injustice while rhetorically using justice as a justification.
No woman can force a man to get her pregnant against his will. Men have total control over what they stick their dicks in, and they are responsible for their own sperm. Trying to call it an issue of “reproductive choice” is a fucking joke. These guys made their choice. The assertion made in the brief that abortion rights have anything to do with a presumed right to fuck without consequences is a laughable load of crap, and the Court rightly rejected it as the garbage that it is. Abortion rights is not about contraception, but about physical autonomy over one’s own body. Men have exactly the same autonomy, and they are exercising it when they decide to put their sperm inside someone else’s body.
Making it legal for men to abandon their children is not going to decrease unwanted pregnancies, it’s telling them they no longer have any responsibility at all, and it places 100% of the responsibility completely on women.
I don’t care if a woman lies to a guy to get pregnant. Tough fucking titty. He’s still the one who’s responsible for his own sperm and his own offspring, and it’s recklessly irresponsible for him to take his partner’s word about birth control.
He makes his decision when he ejaculates. He is responsible for his own children. If he tries to run, he should be hunted down like a dog. THAT’S what’s going to reduce unwanted pregnancies is actually making an effort to make these sleazeballs accountable, not just telling women they’re on their own. I think that’s a hateful, misogynistic, backwards-ass attitude (and I don’t care that the OP is a woman), but beyond that, it’s an incredibly shitty thing to do to the children,
No, it should not be legal for a man to force a woman to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. Nor should it be possible, in most cases, for a man to evade fiscal responsibility by saying he never wanted a child. (You roll the dice, you take your chances.)
I do think men being forced to pay child support to rapists (sections II and IV) is fundamentally unfair, but those are obviously exceptional cases. (And I call bullshit on the argument that society’s interest in the child outweighs its interest in justice. If society cares so much about the child, let society pay child support.)
I basically agree with the OP, but I don’t get this “forcing women to put the babies up for adoption” thing. I think if the dad wants out, he should be able to get out, but why should he be able to force the woman to give up the child? Once he’s opted out, he gets no more say in anything to do with the child, right? What am I missing? And regarding more kids in foster care, I believe, at least in the US, babies up for adoption get snapped up pretty quickly. I can see this leading to more adoptions, but very much doubt that there is suddenly going to be such a glut of newborn babies that they languish in foster care for years.
I fully agree with **Stoid **on principle - if a woman who got pregnant by accident can choose to have an abortion or give up her baby regardless of what the bio father wants, then the man should also have the right, or at least *some *right to choose not to be the father of an unwanted child. It’s certainly better to grow up with a loving dad that a resentful one, or one who only exists in the form of alimony checks.
Condoms fail. Feces happen. Why should men be the only ones to be forced to bear such lifechanging responsibility in case of accidents, if not for the very traditionnal and outdated conception of family Roe v. Wade freed women from ? Tao’s right, it does take two (or more ) to tango… and that works both ways.
I don’t want kids, I never wanted kids, I never will want kids and the Supreme Court has ruled out the idea that abstension could be construed as my sprogless choice. If my partner and I conceive despite adequate precautions, I don’t want that child. A woman in my position gets the option to have an abortion, or put the child up for adoption. While I don’t claim the right to force her to have an abortion since it’s her body, and her decision ; it’s my entire life, and that’s my decision too.
So I certainly claim the right to say “You want to keep it ? Fine. I don’t, I’m gone, we’d talked about this”. Asshole ? Probably. I can live with that.
However, I also realize it’s problematic to say the least to enforce both rights equally or fairly, and that in practice it’d certainly breed some ugly situations…
If you are ignoring the possibility of rape, doesn’t the same apply in reverse? Outside of rape a woman cannot force a man to get her pregnant, but outside of rape a man can’t force a woman to get pregnant either.
I disagree. If neither party can benefit from an unwanted pregnancy, they both have an incentive to avoid unwanted pregnancies. This would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
If men can easily and casually avoid any responsibility of unwanted pregnancies but simply dismissing their offspring do you expect that to reduce pregnancies?
Current law appears to regard economic freedom as being less protected than the personal freedom to control one’s own body. One’s economic situation is certainly a critical factor, but it’s NOT “your entire life.” You still have the right to live with or marry the woman, or not; to be involved in your children’s lives, or not; etc. A woman has all these rights too – the right to terminate a pregnancy is not coequal with these rights, and does not spring from the same considerations. The right to abortion arises from the right to privacy, to control one’s own body, and from the inevitable consequences of biology.
The fact that abortion has economic consequences does NOT give other economic consequences, such as those of childbirth, the same standing as abortion. They’re different realms of law, which is as it should be.
You mean, the same way it’s legal for me to abandon mine?
Why do I get to fuck whomever I please, get pregnant as many times as possible and either abort, give up for adoption, or EVEN drop my baby off at a hospital without so much as a note and walk away…but the very nice fellow who wore a condom that slipped off has NO choice at all and MUST be tied to that child financially for the next 18 years?
Please, without getting all gooey over the poor neglected babies, since you don’t get all gooey over them when I’m killing and abandoning and giving them away, explain why this is just?
And maybe not of all pregnancies, but of pregnancies occurring in unmarried women under the age of 25? I’m guessing a good number. And under the age of 20? LOTS. And OVER the age of 35? A number again.
I’m a woman. I know women. Trust me, Dio…we are a cunning lot.
The thing is, the woman made the same choice as the man, but is given additional rights because she has to carry the baby. She could control her privacy, body, and biological consequences BY NOT HAVING SEX, but she doesn’t. So she gets the ability to control those things after the fact. The man gets no such allowances. Having sex means he is responsible for the child. His only sure resource is to NOT HAVE SEX, but the Court allows for women to absolve that responsibility.* If finances don’t count, then why doesn’t the woman have to pay child support on the aborted child if the man wanted to keep the baby? Heck, why do we give 50% of the population control over whether a baby is born or not? Why isn’t it a joint decision from the start?
You can argue that this difference is because men and women are different. But you cannot argue that the rights are the same.
One gets out of it by killing a living being. The other gets out of it by paying money. Seems that money is actually considered more important, not less.
) to tango… and that works both ways.