# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/201 "2009-06-10T16:09:10Z")
> [@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 judge would likely tell both parties that the contract is unenforceable against either of them. Agreements (like prenups) that limit or eliminate child support are generally held to be void as against public policy. Now, what they could do is seek judicial termination of his parental rights after the child is born, but even if they’re in agreement it’s up to the judge as to whether to find termination is in the child’s best interest. Courts usually look on terminations that let one parent off of the hook with disfavor unless there’s a new spouse willing to adopt. ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/202 "2009-06-10T16:09:48Z")
> [@xcalibre](#): > > 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.” You really contest any of these things? I think they’ve pretty much all been cited already. Safe Haven, and adoption laws as well as the text of the Roe decision. I don’t think there’s anything left. Which of those statements do you seriously want to contest? ---
**Author:** ![Amara\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7993a0/32.png) [@Amara\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amara_1)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/203 "2009-06-10T16:15:08Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Barriers like condoms break with horrifying frequency, and of course interfere with sensation, so are refused by some men. That leaves blocking the production of sperm, which needs hormonal alteration. But the problem there is the same hormones that cause men to make sperm also make them manly men. Not many men are willing to trade certain contraception for manboobs and a higher voice. The world’s smallest violin is playing here. I understand that biology isn’t fair but the whining from the male supporters here is ridiculous. You’ll want a perfect contraceptive that has no side effects before it would be _fair?_ **Women** don’t have a perfect contraceptive today. Women have periods every month with effects that can range up to debilitating. Hormonal birth control can have horrific effects on women - including suicidal depression - and many women can’t tolerate them at all. I was on one that made me throw up non-stop for 2 months before I stopped using it. The easiest pregnancy in the world is still uncomfortable and most pregnancies can have permanent effects on a woman’s body that are not possible to predict beforehand. And you’ll are whining that life isn’t fair physically for men? It is to laugh. The fairness that you’ll are talking about are that men should have all the good parts but none of the bad ones. Must be nice to live in fantasy land. And pro-choice means exactly that. It doesn’t mean pro-abortion. There are many women who make it quite clear that while they are on contraceptives and not want to be pregnant that they would **not** consent to an abortion. A guy who sleeps with a woman like this knows (or should know) exactly what he is getting into in the case of an accident. And yes, accidents do sometimes happen and it is not always because a woman is lying and deceitful. And even if a woman does make it clear that she would have an abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancy the procedure is painful and (often) invasive and not without risk. To say that a man is wearing a condom so an accident isn’t his problem is ludicrous. You don’t tell that to a woman who is on contraceptives and still gets pregnant. Women also still have to pay for the child or an abortion as do men. I’m not seeing the extra risk or burden that guys have but I do see the one that women have. I agree that it does suck that, due to biology, that women have an extra chance to make a decision but the bulk of the suggestions here are ridiculous and misogynistic. Especially the one where the guy doesn’t even have to show that he told a woman that he doesn’t want to be a father and just sign something with the state. Wonderful! The woman isn’t even part of the process! Which is exactly where some of you are coming from…the woman isn’t even a real person to some of you. And since anecdotes are flying around here, my anecdote is that I have known more men than women who lie to get their SO’s pregnant (ranging from lying about wearing a condom to convincing them that they want a child) and then walk away. And, of those, the ones who sued for child support were called names and accused of lying to the men. ---
**Author:** ![Amara\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7993a0/32.png) [@Amara\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amara_1)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/204 "2009-06-10T16:25:30Z")
> [@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 ? In your scenario, why does this discussion happen **after** sex? For a decision to be informed, it needs to occur **prior** to sex. In your scenario, what happens if the girl refuses to sign the contract? Can the guy unilaterally say that he is walking away _after the fact?_ For all you know, he lied to her before sex and said, “I’ll be there for you no matter what” knowing that he can just sign something and walk away afterwards…her consent not needed. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/205 "2009-06-10T16:31:18Z")
> [@xcalibre](#): > > “You can’t give the baby up for adoption without the father’s permission.” > > “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.” I don’t know what context the other quotes were made in, but I can attest that these are all correct. Once the child is born, both parents have coequal rights and duties to the child, and neither parent can unilaterally divest the other parent of those rights without notice and a hearing that satisfies due process requirements. Neither parent can give the child up for adoption over the objection of the other. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/206 "2009-06-10T16:43:34Z")
> [@Amara\_1](#): > > Especially the one where the guy doesn’t even have to show that he told a woman that he doesn’t want to be a father and just sign something with the state. Wonderful! The woman isn’t even part of the process! Which is exactly where some of you are coming from…the woman isn’t even a real person to some of you. You misunderstood me, or I wasn’t clear enough despite several clarifications. I wasn’t saying “just sign a docket with the state and you’re OK, the woman doesn’t have to be part of the process”. The docket is the first part of the process, not the process. It was evident to me that the woman was to be immediately and officially informed of the signing of the docket. The docket process \*is \*telling the woman that he doesn’t want to be a father, in a manner that she can’t deny later. Regarding your anecdotes, I must say I’m really breathtaken by one (though I don’t doubt it occuring) : lying about wearing a condom ? How does \*that \*happen ? ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/207 "2009-06-10T16:46:37Z")
> [@Amara\_1](#): > > In your scenario, why does this discussion happen **after** sex? For a decision to be informed, it needs to occur **prior** to sex. In your scenario, what happens if the girl refuses to sign the contract? Can the guy unilaterally say that he is walking away _after the fact?_ I wasn’t addressing that. I was just asking about the outcome of that precise, exact scenario - boy and girl aren’t at each other’s throat, respect each other’s decision and whatnot. They could have been, but in my hypo, they’re not. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/208 "2009-06-10T16:47:14Z")
> [@Amara\_1](#): > > In your scenario, why does this discussion happen **after** sex? For a decision to be informed, it needs to occur **prior** to sex. In your scenario, what happens if the girl refuses to sign the contract? Can the guy unilaterally say that he is walking away _after the fact?_ Exactly. The horse is out of the barn by that point. If the woman is assuming that the guy she’s sleeping with will take responsibility for any offspring he creates, what better way to dispel of her that notion and ensure that fatherhood won’t happen than giving her official notice _before_ sex is had. Advocates of the opting-out-by-contract arrangement do their own position a disservice when they overlook the most rational course of action in favor of the one that ensures they get the sex they want with none of the inconvenience. ---
**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, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/209 "2009-06-10T16:56:34Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > 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. It’s not the woman’s right to choose parenting that trumps anything. It’s her right to do what she wants with her body. Parenting has nothing to do with it at that point, because there’s nothing to “parent”. ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/210 "2009-06-10T16:59:15Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Advocates of the opting-out-by-contract arrangement do their own position a disservice when they overlook the most rational course of action in favor of the one that ensures they get the sex they want with none of the inconvenience. This. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/211 "2009-06-10T17:04:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > You misunderstood me, or I wasn’t clear enough despite several clarifications. I wasn’t saying “just sign a docket with the state and you’re OK, the woman doesn’t have to be part of the process”. The docket is the first part of the process, not the process. It was evident to me that the woman was to be immediately and officially informed of the signing of the docket. Informed by who? Who documents that she was informed? Is it your proposal that this is to be done for every woman a guy wants to have sex with? On a first date, are you proposing that she be served by an official from the state with your little announcement sometime during the dessert (and good luck trying to get laid after that, by the way)? > [@](#): > > The docket process \*is \*telling the woman that he doesn’t want to be a father, in a manner that she can’t deny later. Why should the state care if he wants to be a father? The state’s compelling interst is in what’s best for the child, not in what you don’t want. > [@](#): > > Regarding your anecdotes, I must say I’m really breathtaken by one (though I don’t doubt it occuring) : lying about wearing a condom ? How does \*that \*happen ? The guy can slip it off in the dark. The woman doesn’t always know the difference just from feel. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/212 "2009-06-10T17:34:03Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] It’s not the woman’s right to choose parenting that trumps anything. It’s her right to do what she wants with her body. [/QUOTE] Nope. That’s your interpretation (and, I should add, the very strictest sense) of what privacy means. If that’s what it was all about, why would SCOTUS have mentionned all the other reasons as valid concerns and considerations falling under the privacy header ? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Informed by who? Who documents that she was informed? Is it your proposal that this is to be done for every woman a guy wants to have sex with? On a first date, are you proposing that she be served by an official from the state with your little announcement sometime during the dessert (and good luck trying to get laid after that, by the way)? Gods, I’m not a lawyer, I don’t care about the practical details, nor am I qualified to define them without any loophole. Assume a docket-cum-information procedure can been established that has enough checks and balances to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the woman is informed. And quit pretending I’m asking for an automatic get out of jail free card, I’m not, and I’ve already said so countless times. > [@](#): > > Why should the state care if he wants to be a father? The state’s compelling interst is in what’s best for the child, not in what you don’t want. Is it in a child’s best interest to be born without a willing, loving and supportive father, then ? ---
**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, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/213 "2009-06-10T17:39:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You really contest any of these things? I think they’ve pretty much all been cited already. Safe Haven, and adoption laws as well as the text of the Roe decision. I don’t think there’s anything left. Which of those statements do you seriously want to contest? Are you looking for a free pass? I not only contest them but I already posted a cite with hyperlink to information that contradicts your assertions, and I have also cited a legal precedent which again contradicts your “baseless” and “laughable” assertions. But, that’s not even what’s relevant, you need to get out of the habit of angrily demanding support for other people’s assertions when you never provide any of your own. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/214 "2009-06-10T17:41:01Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > I don’t know what context the other quotes were made in, but I can attest that these are all correct. Once the child is born, both parents have coequal rights and duties to the child, and neither parent can unilaterally divest the other parent of those rights without notice and a hearing that satisfies due process requirements. Neither parent can give the child up for adoption over the objection of the other. What basis do you have for attesting that they are all correct statements? ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/215 "2009-06-10T17:52:01Z")
He’s a lawyer. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/216 "2009-06-10T17:54:23Z")
> [@xcalibre](#): > > Are you looking for a free pass? I not only contest them but I already posted a cite with hyperlink to information that contradicts your assertions, and I have also cited a legal precedent which again contradicts your “baseless” and “laughable” assertions. > > But, that’s not even what’s relevant, you need to get out of the habit of angrily demanding support for other people’s assertions when you never provide any of your own. I don’t know what you think you’ve contradicted, but all of my statements about sfae haven and adoption laws have already been cited, as well as the text of Roe v. Wade. What’s left? What exact statements are you contending? ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/217 "2009-06-10T18:01:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t know what you think you’ve contradicted, but all of my statements about sfae haven and adoption laws have already been cited, as well as the text of Roe v. Wade. What’s left? What exact statements are you contending? Am I really that unclear? Every single of those statements you made are without any support provided by you. If you really need help, you can start with this one: “You can’t give the baby up for adoption without the father’s permission.” You might want to start here: [http://adoptassoc.com/domestic/legal/faq/](http://adoptassoc.com/domestic/legal/faq/) where they clearly state you do NOT need the father’s permission. ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/218 "2009-06-10T18:05:36Z")
You might also want to look into this one “Men’s responsibility doesn’t accrue until the child is born.” In Abernathy v. Baby Boy, the court ruled that the birth father must show record of financial support for the pregnancy costs of the birth mother in order to establish he has any say over the adoption proceedings. Failure to take responsibility PRIOR to the child’s birth will legally remove his rights of any parental control for that decision. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/219 "2009-06-10T18:11:57Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Gods, I’m not a lawyer, I don’t care about the practical details, nor am I qualified to define them without any loophole. Assume a docket-cum-information procedure can been established that has enough checks and balances to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the woman is informed. You can’t just wave your hands and say “assume my proposal is practical.” I’m still trying to understand what you’re even trying to propose. So you want to be able to make some kind of formal announcement to the state that you will not take any financial responsibility for any babies you might make. You then want the state to tell that to all your sexual partners. That’s your proposal, right? If so, you have to establish a time, a means and some kind of documentation that the woman was informed and agreed to this before sex. When are they going to be told, who’s going to tell them, and what is going to be the proof that they were told? If you can’t answer those questions, you don’t have a proposal. Even with all that, you’re still missing the point that your responsibility is not to the woman, but to your children. YOUR children. That’s what the state cares about, not your financial comfort. > [@](#): > > Is it in a child’s best interest to be born without a willing, loving and supportive father, then ? We’re talking about children that are already born, so this question is irrelevant. It sure as hell does not serve any state interest to legitimate the financial abndonment of children by their fathers. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/220 "2009-06-10T18:13:12Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Nope. That’s your interpretation (and, I should add, the very strictest sense) of what privacy means. So again I’m left wondering if you think women would still be granted abortion rights if males were the one to get pregnant. You failed to answer this very important question. You can interpret and parse privacy to mean anything you want it to mean, and you can even espouse that Roe vs Wade factors in reproduction issues. But the fact remains that men are unable to terminate a pregnancy. Not because they are victims of a system out to get them. Not because the law arbitrarily decided that women should be the only ones to decide these matters. \*\*But because a pregnancy does not involve men’s bodies. \*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=12)