# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/301 "2009-06-11T12:43:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If men can easily and casually avoid any responsibility of unwanted pregnancies but simply dismissing their offspring do you expect that to reduce pregnancies? I thought that was already happening on an ad hoc basis. i used to work with a pool of women in a call center. At least 4 or 5 of them every day could be heard in the break room whining about their ‘baby daddy’ and some of them had several kids each by a different father. Pretty much none of them were getting any sort of support from the guys, and some of the guys had multiple kids by multiple women. If you are going to spread your legs, do something actively to prevent pregnancy, if you do get pregnant by someone you are not married to, stop whining if they leave you and screw someone else. Obviously you were just a receptive hole for them to prod, and they just wanted to get off. I have no idea how many times I got hit on by some of the same guys that these women were screwing, _while_ they were screwing the women. If you are screwing someone, dont hit on me at a company party when you are attending with your hole on legs I am not interested. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/302 "2009-06-11T13:07:28Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > On this we agree. Which is why the situation of the guy in the OP is unfair (assuming he’s not lying, obviously) : during or before the sex and conception portion, the woman told him she’d terminate an accidental pregnancy. And then she changes her mind, or was lying all along. There’s gotta be a disincentive for this scenario - it’s unfair to everyone, including the kid. No good comes of it. I have three great kids who were all unplanned. I’d disagree about “no good comes of it” It’s an unfortunate situation. He knew the risk of pregnancy but he should also know that pregnancy is such a momentous event and termination such a serious choice that a woman might change her mind. Having a conversation about it in which she says she’s not ready for children and would terminate is hardly enough to bind her or give a reasonable man an out. I wonder if they’ll consider this an oral contract {if he can prove it} I’d say there could possibly be a binding legal contract that absolves men from parental responsibilities. Good luck getting laid after bringing it up. “hey baby, before we do it, would you mind looking this over and signing the bottom next to my signature.” “What do you mean, get the fuck out asshole?” I understand the feeling of being trapped and the long term financial burden but it is still his child in the world after it’s birth. Avoiding your parental responsibilities can be just as harmful as accepting them. Imagine a decade or so goes by and you’re involved with a woman you truly care about. Unexpectedly she discovers that you have a child that you have avoided emotionally and financially all these years. She may well see you differently. Let’s say you’re honest enough to tell her about this child when things get serious. It can have the same affect. Some men won’t be wondering what their child is doing out there somewhere and what kind of person they are and what they may have missed by avoiding them. For others it may always be present in their mind and hert somewhere. > [@](#): > > I think it’s beyond evidence that the ultimate choice goes to the one getting pregnant. I acknowledged that biology was the reason women got the ultimate, uncontestable decision. But the decision is not just about “controlling what happens inside me”, it’s also a reproductive choice, and a motherhood pick. And that is not a hand-waivable side effect, considering it’s specifically mentionned in text by SCOTUS. Had their decision been “it’s about immediate body control”, they would have said “it’s about immediate body control”. They didn’t. It seems to me that it’s both. Because the woman is the one whose body must carry the child to term and all that that entails, it can only be her choice to either terminate or carry to term. That’s a fact a man must accept and make his own choices accordingly. If he decides he doesn’t want to participate in actual parenting and being a present in the child’s life he must at least fulfill his financial obligation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/303 "2009-06-11T13:15:40Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > That sounds like a great way for a man to make sure that he doesn’t HAVE any sex. Mmmhmm. You understand exactly whats happening. **Problem:** If I tell this woman that if she gets pregnant I’m not going to have anything to do with her, she won’t want to have sex with me. It turns out that women are generally not interested in the kinds of guys who would leave a pregnant lover high and dry. And it’s generally a turn off to say “Look, if you have my kid I don’t want to have anything to do with it, and I really don’t care if it suffers in poverty or not. My personal comfort is the much more important to me than my own child, much less some lady with the bad luck to get knocked up.” Hmmmm… **Solution:** AHA! If I don’t have to tell her that I’m the kind of guy who’d abandon her and my kid if trouble comes up until _after_ I’ve had sex, she won’t say no! Why, there ought to be a law! The reason why you don’t want to do these negotiations before sex is that it would hurt your chances of getting sex. You’d rather not tell your partner what kind of guy you are until after you’ve already gotten what you want. You’d like to maintain the illusion of the social contract that you act like a responsible adult when you have kid, because it serves you well. But you’d like to have the legal option not to actually have to do that. Well, boo hoo. [/QUOTE] Typical demonization of men. What the man is saying is that he _ **doesn’t want children in the first place** _. What people like you are saying is is that he’s nothing but a walking wallet and has no right to complain, or for his desires or needs to be given any consideration at all. If having to “support a child” will break him financially, ruin his life, well he’s a man; he’s expendable. And I put “support a child” in quotes because such laws are really about taking money from men - even if they aren’t the father - and giving it to women - even if she doesn’t spend it on the kid. And another reason I said that the man wouldn’t get sex is because whipping out legal forms before sex is going to be a turn off, obviously. Regardless of what they are about. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > She’s not imposing any decision on him. He made his decision before she did. He agreed to be a father when he came. As **Stoid** points out, that same argument works just as well for outlawing abortion. > [@even\_sven](#): > > Funny. You guys manage to control yourselves when AIDS is the issue. I bet if you moved to South Africa, you’d suddenly become _very_ coldly rational about who you have sex with. I think we must be living on different planets then, if you are on an Earth where something like the threat of death actually convinced men to stop having sex. > [@even\_sven](#): > > And are you saying that there are no sane men who would be willing to support their children? That no sane man says “Well, if it comes to that, we’ll find a way to work it out?” and actually does that? No sane men that are in the kinds of relationships where if things go wrong they work it out together? Or just that no sane man is capable of keeping himself to partners that he trusts not to poke holes in condoms? No, I’m saying that under our present system of laws no rational man would have any kind of relationship with a woman at all. Or talk to one without a camera running, for that matter. Most of our laws are so slanted against men when it comes to anything involving women that any rational man would treat any woman he met as a threat. Just as if any rational woman would treat any man she met as a threat if rape were legal. Those laws _ **depend** _ on the fact that men are not rational about women. And no matter how many times you say it, not wanting a kid is not the same thing as not wanting to support one. I imagine that you’d be quite offended if I referred to a woman getting a abortion as someone who was just being irresponsible because she didn’t want to support a kid. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/304 "2009-06-11T13:17:52Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > I thought that was already happening on an ad hoc basis. > > i used to work with a pool of women in a call center. At least 4 or 5 of them every day could be heard in the break room whining about their ‘baby daddy’ and some of them had several kids each by a different father. Pretty much none of them were getting any sort of support from the guys, and some of the guys had multiple kids by multiple women. > If you are going to spread your legs, do something actively to prevent pregnancy, if you do get pregnant by someone you are not married to, stop whining if they leave you and screw someone else. Obviously you were just a receptive hole for them to prod, and they just wanted to get off. > > I have no idea how many times I got hit on by some of the same guys that these women were screwing, _while_ they were screwing the women. If you are screwing someone, dont hit on me at a company party when you are attending with your hole on legs I am not interested. Very earthy and blunt. I like it. You’re right it happens all the time. It’s naive for women to think that a man saying “but baby you know I’ll be there for you” is sincere. What you’re describing is a social or cultural issue for another thread. Why are some women so naive and stupid? The woman’s naivete does not relieve those asshole men from their parental obligations. The problem in this thread is that some are suggesting that men should be able to legally walk away from any parental obligation out of some twisted sense of fair play for men. Do you suppose such a legal out would help the situation you describe. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/305 "2009-06-11T13:30:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As **Stoid** points out, that same argument works just as well for outlawing abortion. I get the reference but it actually doesn’t. The man knows he will never have to make that choice. This argument is also a denial of biological reality. > [@](#): > > And no matter how many times you say it, not wanting a kid is not the same thing as not wanting to support one. I imagine that you’d be quite offended if I referred to a woman getting a abortion as someone who was just being irresponsible because she didn’t want to support a kid. I know women who had abortions because the relationship wasn’t stable and they weren’t ready in their lives to be a mother. It’s perfectly understandable for the financial equation to be part of the decision making. I don’t find it offensive. In the end it seems like useless whining to say, “but biology isn’t fair” That’s right it isn’t. No law will make it so. ---
**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 11, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/306 "2009-06-11T13:43:39Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Hypotheticals are one thing, nonsense is another. Explain why this is nonsense. Your refusal to answer a very straightforward question makes you an obstinant participant in a debate that oddly enough _you_ started. > [@](#): > > My quarrel is with the fact that HER decisions can be imposed on HIM as well. But only as an indirect consequence of exercising control over her own body. It’s silly that this has to be pointed out to you ad nauseum. What makes it even sillier is that I’m pointing this out to another woman. > [@](#): > > Why do you feel the need to make things up? No one has said that abortion should be illegal to make it fair. I didn’t say anyone did. But it’s not necessary to explicitly state that in order to express the sentiment. It shouldn’t matter what women’s options are. Men have _always_ been at the whim of women when it comes to this area, even before abortion was legalized. Yet because women are able to have legal abortions now, men want to complain about an “injustice”. Never mind that this “injustice” has been around forever. It’s purely perception. > [@](#): > > There’s many pages outlining exactly what we think would be fair: men should be given the right relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a short period of time after learning they have helped conceive. Period. Simple. You don’t need to invent new things to argue against. Just deal directly and honestly with the ideas that are being put forth. The only proposal that I think is both fair and rational is for men to waive their rights and responsibilites to any potential offspring _prior_ to them engaging in intercourse with a woman. Relinquishing responsibilities _after_ an unwanted pregnancy takes place is like agreeing to a bet but only if you’re assured to win. If we allow men to “opt out” as you propose, men would lose a major incentive to practice safe sex. Even if we forget about unwanted pregnancies and wards of the state for a sec, please consider the ramifications for HIV transmission and other STDs. Men are at a much lower risk of contracting HIV from women. Because of this, men are probably much more likely to wrap up out of fear of 18 years of child support than AIDS. This will ultimately make women more vulnerable to not only unwanted pregnancy but also life-threatening diseases (as are their unwanted children…which means HIV-positive orphans for the state to take care of, yippeee!!!). I’d rather deal with the “injustice” of men not being able to control what goes on inside women’s bodies than live in a public health nightmare. Furthermore, yall act like women would be dumb enough to tell a guy she’s pregnant, knowing full well that early notification will allow him to “opt out”. All she’d have to do is sit on that news for a few months and then be home free. A lot of women don’t know when they’re pregnant until very late in the game, anyway. This is another reason why it makes sense to have any “opt out” signatures lined up before the deed is done. But why am I wasting my time pointing this out, when such contracts–even if they were legally recognized–will likely go unused? Makes much more sense to double-up on condoms than bring notaries into the bedroom. > [@](#): > > And let’s not forget, I’m a woman. I guess this revelation is supposed to bring me to my knees, pleading surrender, but strangely enough I still think you’re very wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/307 "2009-06-11T13:58:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If we allow men to “opt out” as you propose, men would lose a major incentive to practice safe sex. Even if we forget about unwanted pregnancies and wards of the state for a sec, please consider the ramifications for HIV transmission and other STDs. Men are at a much lower risk of contracting HIV from women. Because of this, men are probably much more likely to wrap up out of fear of 18 years of child support than AIDS. This will ultimately make women more vulnerable to not only unwanted pregnancy but also life-threatening diseases (as are their unwanted children…which means HIV-positive orphans for the state to take care of, yippeee!!!). I’d rather deal with the “injustice” of men not being able to control what goes on inside women’s bodies than live in a public health nightmare. Loath as I am to point out the obvious, I feel I must. A woman can choose not to have sex with a man who won’t use a condom, assuming the sex in question is consensual. Just as men know that they will be responsible for child support for 18-21 years if they get a woman pregnant, women know they are at higher risk for STDs if they have unprotected sex with men. If they choose to go ahead and have the unprotected sex anyway, that’s on them, isn’t it? Just as it’s on a man if he conceives a child when he has unprotected sex. I don’t think your argument, that oppressive child support laws are preventing a “public health nightmare” really holds water. I frankly doubt it’s true, considering how many people wind up having unplanned pregnancies and embroiled in the child support system. Its deterrent effect is far from evident. Additionally, your argument completely ignores other STDs that men can catch, like HPV, herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, etc., if they don’t wear condoms. Avoiding pregnancy and AIDS are not the only motivations for wearing condoms. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/308 "2009-06-11T14:07:09Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I think it’s beyond evidence that the ultimate choice goes to the one getting pregnant. I acknowledged that biology was the reason women got the ultimate, uncontestable decision. But the decision is not just about “controlling what happens inside me”, it’s also a reproductive choice, and a motherhood pick. And that is not a hand-waivable side effect, considering it’s specifically mentionned in text by SCOTUS. Had their decision been “it’s about immediate body control”, they would have said “it’s about immediate body control”. They didn’t. If you remove all the stuff even remotely related to reproduction in the statement, the ruling remains intact. Why do I say this? Because the _legal_ basis for the decision was the right of privacy, not nebulous ideas about reproductive freedom. If that wasn’t the case, then someone by now would have successfully cited Roe vs Wade to argue that it’s unconstitutional that women have to pay to feed their unwanted children. As far as I know, no one has done that. It’s ridiculous on its face. Just as someone can not force me to give a kidney for someone else, or search my home without a warrant, I can’t be forced to incubate an embryo that I don’t want. That’s what privacy means. It doesn’t mean hardship due to parenting. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/309 "2009-06-11T14:16:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Typical demonization of men. What the man is saying is that he _ **doesn’t want children in the first place** _. What people like you are saying is is that he’s nothing but a walking wallet and has no right to complain, or for his desires or needs to be given any consideration at all. If having to “support a child” will break him financially, ruin his life, well he’s a man; he’s expendable. And I put “support a child” in quotes because such laws are really about taking money from men - even if they aren’t the father - and giving it to women - even if she doesn’t spend it on the kid. > > And another reason I said that the man wouldn’t get sex is because whipping out legal forms before sex is going to be a turn off, obviously. Regardless of what they are about. I really wonder about “ruining his poor life” and “breaking him financially”. I doubt he will be in any worse position than the mother of the child (assuming she, and not him, is the primary caregiver). :dubious: Ruining his life? Less spending money, less vacations, less luxuries, less likelihood of social upclimb, yes… But complete and total ruin? And what about the woman, who also has the kid (and is probably the primary caregiver)? Nothing about how her life will be “ruined”? I doubt, highly doubt, this is the case for most men, divorced or single. Really… My sample? All the divorced fathers and their kids who were my classmates (and are my siblings and relatives). I think those that think child support is too high and going to the woman (in most cases) do not know how much it costs to raise a kid. If you see the kids go hungry while mom wears leather bags and fancy perfumes, you may have a point, but most of the time I see the women in low paying positions trying to juggle work and family and making ends meet and avoiding luxuries to give their _kids_ a better chance. But really, if you want to give men the option to back out of child support… It has to happen before sex, before the chance of conception occurs. Then it is really fair, as the woman has informed consent and has signed and agreed to what would happen. Would that get him less sex? Boohoo… remember, the woman who rejects his contract is also refusing sex with him, so she also loses out on the sex (with him, at least). > [@](#): > > I think we must be living on different planets then, if you are on an Earth where something like the threat of death actually convinced men to stop having sex. Yea, it hasn’t convinced women either. 😉 > [@](#): > > And no matter how many times you say it, not wanting a kid is not the same thing as not wanting to support one. I imagine that you’d be quite offended if I referred to a woman getting a abortion as someone who was just being irresponsible because she didn’t want to support a kid. No, the woman was responsible because she aborted before there was a kid to support. Irresponsible (and worse) is the woman who gives birth and then treats said baby as shit. She had the option (before birth) of aborting. She had/has the option (assuming the father agrees) of adopting the kid out. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/310 "2009-06-11T14:19:25Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > +1 > > Though I would like to stick up for the guys here, condoms can break or be defective. Forcing a guy to get a vasectomy is not the answer either until they come up with one that is 100% reversible. Woah, let’s not go overboard here. There’s no female contraception that’s 100% effective and 100% reversible, either. The menfolk don’t need to hold out for \*better \*and \*safer \*options than we have. I’d be happy with a method which is 98% effective, 97% reversible and causes hypertension, embolisms, blood clots, cancer, mood swings, depression, suicidal ideation and intermittent spotty bleeding from the penis, just like The Pill. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If we allow men to “opt out” as you propose, men would lose a major incentive to practice safe sex. Men have been wearing condoms since at least the 16th century, before AIDS was invented, to fuck prostitutes they didn’t care about impregnating. (And by 1605, they were being condemmed by the RC church as “immoral”.) Western (as opposed to Asian) condoms have always been promoted as a way to prevent disease first, and pregnancy second. Before latex, they weren’t even terribly \*good \*at preventing pregnancy, being riddled with holes for semen to leak through. But they did cover many sores and reduce the spread of disease. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/311 "2009-06-11T14:24:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I have three great kids who were all unplanned. I’d disagree about “no good comes of it” Unplanned and unwanted aren’t exactly synonymous, are they ? > [@](#): > > It’s an unfortunate situation. He knew the risk of pregnancy but he should also know that pregnancy is such a momentous event and termination such a serious choice that a woman might change her mind. Having a conversation about it in which she says she’s not ready for children and would terminate is hardly enough to bind her or give a reasonable man an out. \*You \*might consider pregnancy a momentous event and termination a serious choice. It’s not so for everyone. Most of the girls I’m friends with wouldn’t think twice, nor do they buy the gooey, syrupy “pregnancy is such a beautiful miracle” crap. > [@](#): > > I wonder if they’ll consider this an oral contract {if he can prove it} I’d say there could possibly be a binding legal contract that absolves men from parental responsibilities. Good luck getting laid after bringing it up. “hey baby, before we do it, would you mind looking this over and signing the bottom next to my signature.” “What do you mean, get the fuck out asshole?” As I said, I’m upfront about the expecting an abortion in case of accidents thing. I’m still getting laid. > [@](#): > > I understand the feeling of being trapped and the long term financial burden but it is still his child in the world after it’s birth. Avoiding your parental responsibilities can be just as harmful as accepting them. Imagine a decade or so goes by and you’re involved with a woman you truly care about. Unexpectedly she discovers that you have a child that you have avoided emotionally and financially all these years. She may well see you differently. > Let’s say you’re honest enough to tell her about this child when things get serious. It can have the same affect. So ? Seriously. I never, ever got that, no matter how common it is. Maybe it’s because I am not a calculating person, I don’t know. So knowing something about you would maybe change the relationship. SO FUCKING WHAT ? If you’re not the guy she’s looking for, tough nuggets. Your itty bitty feewings and fears are no excuse for dishonesty. You won’t get a pass from me (nor, I suspect, from her) for consciously trying to look like a guy you’re not. Or a woman you’re not. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/312 "2009-06-11T14:31:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If you remove all the stuff even remotely related to reproduction in the statement, the ruling remains intact. Why do I say this? Because the _legal_ basis for the decision was the right of privacy, not nebulous ideas about reproductive freedom. If that wasn’t the case, then someone by now would have successfully cited Roe vs Wade to argue that it’s unconstitutional that women have to pay to feed their unwanted children. As far as I know, no one has done that. It’s ridiculous on its face. > > Just as someone can not force me to give a kidney for someone else, or search my home without a warrant, I can’t be forced to incubate an embryo that I don’t want. That’s what privacy means. It doesn’t mean hardship due to parenting. No. If you remove all the reproductive choice arguments from the reasoning, you get the “abortion only in case of rape” law. That’s not the abortion law most modern countries have, nor should they, because it’s idiotic. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/313 "2009-06-11T14:39:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And by the way, Dio, if your assertion were true, you would have to be advocating that abortion be made illegal for exactly the same reason: she “agrees” to be a mother when she decides to have sex. No, because pregnancy involves the woman’s body. Each person is autonomous as long as his or her own body is involved. Roe V. Wade was based on the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/314 "2009-06-11T14:39:44Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Loath as I am to point out the obvious, I feel I must. A woman can choose not to have sex with a man who won’t use a condom, assuming the sex in question is consensual. Of course they can. The question is will they. They don’t do it now, and that’s why we have an HIV epidemic in [DC](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1885601,00.html) and other places. Obviously we can’t trust everyone to do what is best for them, or we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place. And that would be fine…if these problems remain _individual_ problems. But they affect society. Making it easier for men to rationalize not using condoms will not suddenly make women smarter and savvier, and it’d be stupid to gamble on that happening knowing how fallible human nature is. > [@](#): > > Just as men know that they will be responsible for child support for 18-21 years if they get a woman pregnant, women know they are at higher risk for STDs if they have unprotected sex with men. **If they choose to go ahead and have the unprotected sex anyway, that’s on them, isn’t it?** No, it’s on _us_. We can’t afford short-sightedness. > [@](#): > > Just as it’s on a man if he conceives a child when he has unprotected sex. I don’t think your argument, that oppressive child support laws are preventing a “public health nightmare” really holds water. I frankly doubt it’s true, considering how many people wind up having unplanned pregnancies and embroiled in the child support system. Its deterrent effect is far from evident. Well common sense tells me if men and women are lacksadaical _now_, when child support is a pain in the ass, then it’s unlikely that making it easier for men to be deadbeats will lead to any improvements. I most certainly think it will be worse. Remember that women have sex drives, too. You have guys that now refuse to wear condoms who now have no financial consequences to worry about. Sure, women can say “look buddy, no glove no love.” But many of them aren’t doing that now, even with the threat of AIDs and no guarrantees of child support hanging over their heads. I see no evidence that making women responsible for everything will overcome the cost of making men responsible for just about nothing. And let’s say women do become steadfast about making men wear condoms. As has been pointed out, they do break or slip off. What then? > [@](#): > > Additionally, your argument completely ignores other STDs that men can catch, like HPV, herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, etc., if they don’t wear condoms. Avoiding pregnancy and AIDS are not the only motivations for wearing condoms. HPV and herpes can still be caught by wearing condoms, and I hope most people realize that. Gonorrhea, chalmydia, and syphillis are curable and infrequently fatal. That leaves AIDs and pregnancy as the major deterrances to unprotected sex. Take pregnancy out as a concern of men and I expect AIDs rates to go up. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/315 "2009-06-11T14:41:55Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > No. If you remove all the reproductive choice arguments from the reasoning, you get the “abortion only in case of rape” law. That’s not the abortion law most modern countries have, nor should they, because it’s idiotic. A woman’s right to an abortion does not impede a man’s reproductive rights. No man can become a father against his will. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/316 "2009-06-11T14:45:12Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > As I said, I’m upfront about the expecting an abortion in case of accidents thing. I’m still getting laid. > > So ? Seriously. I never, ever got that, no matter how common it is. Maybe it’s because I am not a calculating person, I don’t know. So knowing something about you would maybe change the relationship. SO FUCKING WHAT ? If you’re not the guy she’s looking for, tough nuggets. Your itty bitty feewings and fears are no excuse for dishonesty. You won’t get a pass from me (nor, I suspect, from her) for consciously trying to look like a guy you’re not. Or a woman you’re not. I don’t agree with your view, but at least you seem to be more upfront about it than others. Would you then agree that if there is a law giving men the option of opting out, a written contract should be established _before_ sex? You’re already upfront to the women about expecting an abortion in case of accidents, so this shouldn’t be a problem, right? Just so that it doesn’t become a “she said/he said” situation. Which is what would happen in your current situation. And to the last part, at least you agreed to honesty and being upfront. Not all the other guys would be that way and could lie to future partners about the kids they “opted out”. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/317 "2009-06-11T14:52:40Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Men have been wearing condoms since at least the 16th century, before AIDS was invented, to fuck prostitutes they didn’t care about impregnating. (And by 1605, they were being condemmed by the RC church as “immoral”.) Western (as opposed to Asian) condoms have always been promoted as a way to prevent disease first, and pregnancy second. Before latex, they weren’t even terribly \*good \*at preventing pregnancy, being riddled with holes for semen to leak through. But they did cover many sores and reduce the spread of disease. Are you attempting to argue that condom use has stayed at 16th century levels and that fear of child support is not big motivation for condom use today? I’m aware that men have historically done all kind of creative things to avoid the creation of “bastard children” and diseases. But all one has to do is have some fireside chats with folks from the free love era of the 60’s and 70’s to see that motivations for or frequency of condom use doesn’t stay static through the ages. ---
**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 11, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/318 "2009-06-11T14:56:55Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > No. If you remove all the reproductive choice arguments from the reasoning, you get the “abortion only in case of rape” law. That’s not the abortion law most modern countries have, nor should they, because it’s idiotic. No you don’t. Where do you get that from? ---
**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 11, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/319 "2009-06-11T15:00:17Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Ii used to work with a pool of women in a call center. At least 4 or 5 of them every day could be heard in the break room whining about their ‘baby daddy’ and some of them had several kids each by a different father. Pretty much none of them were getting any sort of support from the guys, and some of the guys had multiple kids by multiple women. > If you are going to spread your legs, do something actively to prevent pregnancy, if you do get pregnant by someone you are not married to, stop whining if they leave you and screw someone else. Obviously you were just a receptive hole for them to prod, and they just wanted to get off. I agree with this. I detest these women too. While they show no sexual responsibility at all, they invariably also say that abortion is against their “morals.” ---
**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 11, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/320 "2009-06-11T15:08:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A woman’s right to an abortion does not impede a man’s reproductive rights. No man can become a father against his will. And barring rape, no woman can become a mother against her will either, as has been answered to you every time you hammered on this. Your “men are despicable horndogs, women are starry eyed does” conception of the world notwithstanding. Which I totally get, btw, having a serious Knight In Shining Armor complex, and a bad case of misandry myself. I _try_ not to let it cloud my judgment overly much. @\*\*KarlGrenze \*\*: yup, already said so earlier. To me, it wouldn’t be a problem in principle, though I do realize that in practice it’d be decidely weird and awkward to my partners.. and to me. I mean, I know they say romance is dead, but shit, lawyering a relationship ? that’s _cold_ 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=17)