# Abortion for Men (redux) now "Roe v. Wade for Men" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186 "2009-06-09T04:22:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/181 "2009-06-10T14:03:27Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > He’s not a loser for not keeping it in his pants. He’s a loser for walking away from his own flesh and blood, because he’d rather have some spare money for a boat or whatever than help make sure his own child has the best chances in life. > > Have all the sex you want. But man up when it is time to man up. Since when does flesh and blood matter one wink? My stepfather is the greatest man i know(and has the patience of a saint.. how he put up with my mom all those years…). There is far, far more to being a parent than a drunken sperm/egg deposit in the back of a car in some seedy bar parking lot. FWIW, I agree with the notion that men should be able to opt out of parenthood before a certain period in the womans pregnancy. I’d say 1st trimester, giving the woman 3 months to decide what she wants to do as well. If she doesn’t know him or can’t find the father before that time, then his rights are automatically waived unless he expresses desire at any point later on. We really just need to abandon the idea of sex equaling parenthood. Its not anymore, or shouldn’t be. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/182 "2009-06-10T14:19:10Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Good idea. Make that true for even numbered years. For odd numbered years, if a man isn’t married to the woman who gave birth to his child, she has no responsibility for the offspring and he must bear all parental burdens. > . Or better yet, leave it the way I suggested, and most women will become very choosy about the men they sleep with. That system’s 100% fair to everyone. A woman will have no claim on a man to whom she is not married, and a man will have no claim on a woman to whom he is not married, or on any children he may father with her. Simple, easy, and everybody knows exactly what’s expected of them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/183 "2009-06-10T14:36:09Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > Since when does flesh and blood matter one wink? My stepfather is the greatest man i know(and has the patience of a saint.. how he put up with my mom all those years…). > > There is far, far more to being a parent than a drunken sperm/egg deposit in the back of a car in some seedy bar parking lot. > FWIW, I agree with the notion that men should be able to opt out of parenthood before a certain period in the womans pregnancy. I’d say 1st trimester, giving the woman 3 months to decide what she wants to do as well. If she doesn’t know him or can’t find the father before that time, then his rights are automatically waived unless he expresses desire at any point later on. > > We really just need to abandon the idea of sex equaling parenthood. Its not anymore, or shouldn’t be. Tell that to the kids of deadbeats. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/184 "2009-06-10T14:38:15Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Or better yet, leave it the way I suggested, and most women will become very choosy about the men they sleep with. That system’s 100% fair to everyone. A woman will have no claim on a man to whom she is not married, and a man will have no claim on a woman to whom he is not married, or on any children he may father with her. Simple, easy, and everybody knows exactly what’s expected of them. So your solution is to make all the responsibility fall on the women, to the detriment of the child, even though the deadbeat didn’t have to stick it in? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/185 "2009-06-10T14:46:03Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > We really just need to abandon the idea of sex equaling parenthood. Its not anymore, or shouldn’t be. Sex shouldn’t be a lot of things. You shouldn’t have to risk getting an incurable disease. You shouldn’t have to ever get your heart broken when you are lied to. We live in a world of risk. Sex is risky. Really, would you rather have the risk of child support that men have (and that women, of course, also have) or women’s increased risk of getting AIDS from a sex partner? You want to talk about biology being unfair? Are you really ready to argue that men get the short end, so to speak, of the sex stick? Life isn’t fair. Don’t take that out on your own child. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/186 "2009-06-10T14:46:46Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Barriers like condoms break with horrifying frequency, and of course interfere with sensation, so are refused by some men. And women, I hasten to add. [QUOTE=you with the face] If pregnancy took place inside a mechanical incubator instead of a woman’s body, SCOTUS would have been unable to rule the way they did. That makes biology of utmost primacy (i.e. “the only real reason”). [/QUOTE] Where do you get that ? ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/187 "2009-06-10T14:50:45Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > But regardless of any steps taken, failures and mistakes happen. So if the son turns out to be the father, he’s on the hook for child support anyway, right? Ah, now that is the debate, isn’t it? A man who uses really really reliable contraception, expresses, through his actions, a VERY strong opinion, before intercourse, that he doesn’t want to be a father. As such, he should stand a better chance in court if he wanted to opt out. (This is of course theoretical, as such male contraceptives are not really available yet, as WhyNot pointed out.) Take for instance, a man who has undergone a vasectomy. The chance of him accidentally impregnating a woman is freakishly small. Now suppose it somehow did happen, and he is in court, saying he didn’t want a child, and took every reasonable precaution imaginable not to get a woman pregnant. Could a judge, reasonably, say to the guy: “No, you took the risk, now pay?” Compare it to countries who don’t allow a woman to have an abortion, but who do allow it if she was raped. The reasoning is that she can’t reasonably be blamed for the pregnancy. Now, could a judge reasonably blame a man who had a freaking vasectomy, for still getting a woman pregnant? None of this holds for ordinary condom use. The pregnancy rate there is just too high to consider condom use a “reasonable precaution” against getting pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/188 "2009-06-10T15:00:36Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > The concern I have is this scenario : > boy meets girl. boy and girl make sweet monkey love. girl gets pregnant, and informs boy she’d like to keep it. Boy and girl sign a contract to the amount of “boy unilateraly waives all paternal rights, girl unilateraly absolves boy of all paternal duties”. Boy and girl go their own way. Girl figures out too late that lone parenting is hard, or falls on hard financial times or whatever. Girl tracks down boy and begs him to help. Boy says “I told you so, and we had a contract”. Girl goes to trial. > Would Judge tell girl to “man up”, or tell boy that the contract is unenforceable because it’s trumped by the child’s well being or whatever ? Has there ever been such a case ? The contract is unenforceable because you cannot sign away someone else’s rights. Child support is owed to the child, not to any parent. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/189 "2009-06-10T15:09:42Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If pregnancy took place inside a mechanical incubator instead of a woman’s body, SCOTUS would have been unable to rule the way they did. That makes biology of utmost primacy (i.e. “the only real reason”). Such is your theory, and I appreciate how you come to it. Certainly if it took place inside an incubator, they would never have been asked the question, given that such a scenario also means that there would never be any unwanted children. But they were asked the question, and they answered it, and they did so putting very little emphasis of any kind on the biological aspect. And that’s what we know for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/190 "2009-06-10T15:12:19Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > Wouln’t this whole problem be solved if men used really good and semi-permanent contraceptives of their own? Some form that would not dependent on skilled or conscious use. > > We could send our teenage sons to get an hormone implant when they turn 16. An implant that would need renewal only once every five years. If a girl claimed she got pregnant, we (or our sons) would wave the doctor’s certificate that he had taken the trouble of anticonception, and that, therefore, we have taken all steps to avoid becoming a father. Have you ever read “This Perfect Day” by Ira Levin? Very cool science fiction book wherein everyone is genetically identical and the population is controlled and managed by, among other things, injections of chemical cocktails that include, among other things, contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/191 "2009-06-10T15:19:30Z")
> [@Maastricht](#): > > Ah, now that is the debate, isn’t it? A man who uses really really reliable contraception, expresses, through his actions, a VERY strong opinion, before intercourse, that he doesn’t want to be a father. As such, he should stand a better chance in court if he wanted to opt out. (This is of course theoretical, as such male contraceptives are not really available yet, as WhyNot pointed out.) > > Take for instance, a man who has undergone a vasectomy. The chance of him accidentally impregnating a woman is freakishly small. Now suppose it somehow did happen, and he is in court, saying he didn’t want a child, and took every reasonable precaution imaginable not to get a woman pregnant. Could a judge, reasonably, say to the guy: “No, you took the risk, now pay?” > > Compare it to countries who don’t allow a woman to have an abortion, but who do allow it if she was raped. The reasoning is that she can’t reasonably be blamed for the pregnancy. Now, could a judge reasonably blame a man who had a freaking vasectomy, for still getting a woman pregnant? > > None of this holds for ordinary condom use. The pregnancy rate there is just too high to consider condom use a “reasonable precaution” against getting pregnant. With a woman and rape, there was no consent to the act that can result in pregnancy. With a man, he has consented and participated in the act, regardless of what precautions were taken prior to the act. But that’s really not the issue here. Intent, _inshment_, I say. Shit happens. Our lives don’t always turn out the way we want. I get that a woman has more options for the end result of the pregnancy, but that is purely biological. As I said in an earlier post, if the father’s body was put into pregnancy mode, he’d have an option to end the pregnancy, too. But it’s not his body. I know its difficult for people to distinguish between the legal aspect of right to privacy and the secondary “benefit” of ending one’s responsibility to the pregnancy, but it is a difference that cannot be understated. If a child is born as a result of the pregnancy, it is the _child’s_ right to receive support from its parents. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/192 "2009-06-10T15:23:56Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Where do you get that ? By understanding what the right of privacy means. Now I must ask whether you think abortion rights apply to women and not men for _any other_ reason other than the fact that women exclusively carry pregnancies. If men were the pregnant ones, do you really think Roe v Wade would still give women the right to abortion while leaving men on the hook? Yes or no. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/193 "2009-06-10T15:26:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The person who invents that deserves a, quite literal, fucking Nobel Prize. I’m not sure it’s the [inventing](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30617928/) that’s the problem – it’s convincing drug makers that men will actually pay for it (and, I guess, convincing men to actually take it and to put up with the same potential side effects that plague women on hormonal BC). From the article > [@](#): > > “It’s not a very lucrative market. Obviously there’s a lot of ways to control male fertility in the united States,” Dr. Sanadi said. " A male going once a month for an injection, it seems like something that not attractive to do." > > And even less attractive, the shot, which would likely be injected into the shoulder, has some interesting side effects, including a decreased libido and more virility. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/194 "2009-06-10T15:38:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And a woman can have an abortion if contraception fails. She can also give the baby up for adoption. And a man can do…nothing. It’s not about a woman’s right to not be a mother, it’s about her right to make decisions about her own body. If the government can’t tell her what to do with her own body, there’s no way to assert that some guy can. The guy can not have sex or use contraception. No one is stealing his sperm. Maybe an argument can be made with regards to being able to disown the kid, but no argument can be made with regard to the choice to have the abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/195 "2009-06-10T15:39:11Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > FWIW, I agree with the notion that men should be able to opt out of parenthood before a certain period in the womans pregnancy. He can opt out by not ejaculating in someone else’s body. You can’t just fire a rocket into the air and then say don’t want to be responsible if it hits somebody. > [@](#): > > We really just need to abandon the idea of sex equaling parenthood. Its not anymore, or shouldn’t be. It’s not an “idea,” it’s a fact of biology. Men do not have any kind of entitlement to risk free sex. Having potentially procreative sex is an assumed risk. If you don’t like the risk, don’t do it. I still can’t see how anybody thinks the state would be served by relinquishing men from all responsibility for their children and dumping it all on the taxpayers. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/196 "2009-06-10T15:41:54Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Such is your theory, and I appreciate how you come to it. Certainly if it took place inside an incubator, they would never have been asked the question, given that such a scenario also means that there would never be any unwanted children. > > But they were asked the question, and they answered it, and they did so putting very little emphasis of any kind on the biological aspect. And that’s what we know for sure. I disagree. If you read your excerpt again, you’ll notice this part follows all the arguments about hardship due to childcare etc.: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > **On the basis of elements such as these** , appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. **With this we do not agree.** (bolding mine) Sounds like the justices were listing arguments used to defend the legitimacy of abortion, many of which relate to reproduction. But they essentially stated that they do not agree that these arguments make woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy absolute, as “appellant and some amici argue”. It was the right of personal privacy that was cited as the basis for their ruling, and nothing else. I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked **Kobal** , since you took issue with the mechanical incubator thing. If men, not women, were the ones to get pregnant, do you think Roe v Wade would still give women the right to abortion while leaving men on the hook? I’ll be flabbergasted if you say anything except no. ---
**Author:** ![xcalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/5daacb/32.png) [@xcalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/197 "2009-06-10T15:45:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’re the one alleging a particular reality. Let’s see some data to back it up. I’m saying no such data exists. Prove me wrong. You make a ton of assertions in this thread, and you never provide data or support for any of them. I’ve asked you once already to provide data or support and you did not. The sword swings both ways, I’d rather you stop badgering people for something you yourself refuse to do. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/198 "2009-06-10T15:48:38Z")
> [@xcalibre](#): > > You make a ton of assertions in this thread, and you never provide data or support for any of them. I’ve asked you once already to provide data or support and you did not. The sword swings both ways, I’d rather you stop badgering people for something you yourself refuse to do. What do you want a cite for? ---
**Author:** ![xcalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/5daacb/32.png) [@xcalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/199 "2009-06-10T16:01:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What do you want a cite for? You could start with all of these, most of them are the same. “It’s not legal for you to abandon yours.” “You can’t give the baby up for adoption without the father’s permission.” “Men’s responsibility doesn’t accrue until the child is born.” “and she can’t arrange an adoption without the father’s permission.” “I agree, but those are different issues than whether the guy should be able to walk awy scot-free of any responsibility at all just be yelling, “not it.” The woman has no such ability, regardless of some of the ignorant assertions which have been made in this thread.” “The Supreme Court declared no such thing, and after the child is born (it’s irrelevant what happens during pregnancy), the sperm donor has exactly the same rights as the mother.” “If he can prove he’s the father, though, he still has all parental rights.” “Men have the same safe haven rights as women.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/200 "2009-06-10T16:08:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > By understanding what the right of privacy means. > > Now I must ask whether you think abortion rights apply to women and not men for _any other_ reason other than the fact that women exclusively carry pregnancies. If men were the pregnant ones, do you really think Roe v Wade would still give women the right to abortion while leaving men on the hook? Yes or no. The biological aspect is the reason for the woman getting the right to make the ultimate decision, but the decision itself is not being questioned at all. I think that if pregnancy happened in a vacuum, both parents would still get the right to request the artipregnancy to be discontinued, out of the very same right to privacy, best interest of society in general etc… (i.e. all the points bolded by \*\*Stoid \*\*in the excerpt), which has been deemed to trump the “child’s” right to live up to a certain point. It’s my impression that SCOTUS ruled that there was a point at which the mother’s privacy right was trumped by the child-to-be’s biology, but that before this point, the woman’s right to choose parenting or not was the one holding more weight. I could be wrong, there. @ **Shodan** : Thanks. And yeah, that’s what I figured. Which… kinda sucks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=11)