# 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:** 17
**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, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/321 "2009-06-11T15:12:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > 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. That’s correct. So what? > [@](#): > > Your “men are despicable horndogs, women are starry eyed does” conception of the world notwithstanding. I don’t think that at all. I can’t stand women who have baby after baby with one absent loser after another. My concern is for the children, not their mothers. That’s who the fathers’ obligations belong to – their children. The mothers of their children are neither here nor there. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/322 "2009-06-11T15:19:19Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > **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. > . And it hasn’t occurred to any of you deep thinkers yet that this is why society used to frown on non-marital sex? ---
**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, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/323 "2009-06-11T15:20:57Z")
In case someone needs a [cite](http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll?BU=http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll&QF0=DocNo&QI0=148137&TN=Popline&AC=QBE_QUERY&MR=30%25DL=1&&RL=1&&RF=LongRecordDisplay&DF=LongRecordDisplay) that fear of pregnancy is the biggest motivator for condom use: > [@Cooper ML; Agocha VB; Powers AM](#): > > This study explores the implications of using condoms for pregnancy prevention versus disease prevention, and examines intervention efforts aimed at understanding and changing condom use behaviors. Differences in motives for condom use and their implications for understanding frequency of use were investigated in a random, biracial (Black, White) sample of heterosexuals. A total of 902 respondents residing in Buffalo, New York, aged 17-25 years were interviewed. **Results indicated that sexually active young adults were more likely to use condoms to prevent pregnancy than to prevent disease, regardless of race, age, gender, or relationship status** Reasons for use mediated the effects of relationship status on condom use per se and moderated the effects of attitudinal and perceptual variables on condom use. In addition, comparisons among condom users motivated by different prevention goals and nonusers (388 heterosexuals) revealed that differences among user subgroups were nearly as numerous and, in some cases, more forceful than differences between users and nonusers. Overall, these findings indicate that condom users comprise distinct subgroups, defined in part by their underlying motives for use, and underscore important conceptual and empirical reasons to distinguish among them. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/324 "2009-06-11T15:23:30Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > 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? Pretty much, yes. You see, one of the most important social functions of marriage is getting young men to accept responsibility for the children they father, and integrating them into society by integrating them into families. Two things you don’t want in any community are lots of fatherless children and lots of unattached young men. ---
**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, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/325 "2009-06-11T15:29:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s correct. So what? So your “you accepted to be a father when you porked her” rationale works just as well for “you accepted to be a mother when you spread 'em”. As has been answered to you ad nauseam. SCOTUS rejected it, and that’s a good thing. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that at all. I can’t stand women who have baby after baby with one absent loser after another. […] OK. What measures would you suggest to curb that behavior ? > [@](#): > > My concern is for the children, not their mothers. That’s who the fathers’ obligations belong to – their children. And there we agree, in case you haven’t noticed yet. ---
**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/326 "2009-06-11T15:48:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > So your “you accepted to be a father when you porked her” rationale works just as well for “you accepted to be a mother when you spread 'em.” No, a mother accepts it when she gives birth. The man’s choice stops at ejaculation because that’s when his BODY stops being involved. > [@](#): > > OK. What measures would you suggest to curb that behavior? None. I’m also not proposing any measure to stop men from being Johnny Appleseeds. Both partners just need to be responsible for the consequences, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/327 "2009-06-11T15:51:39Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > So your “you accepted to be a father when you porked her” rationale works just as well for “you accepted to be a mother when you spread 'em”. As has been answered to you ad nauseam. SCOTUS rejected it, and that’s a good thing. The true statement is “you accepted to be a mother or father when your necessary biological involvement with the production of the child ended.” And that is true for men and women. Once the woman stops incubating the fetus, and there is a child, she has responsibilities to that child. Once the man donates his DNA, and **once there is a child** , he has responsibilities to that child. Equal. ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/328 "2009-06-11T16:02:43Z")
> [@KarlGrenze](#): > > 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”? Given that SHE will have HIS money, of course she’s better off. And SHE is the one doing what she wants, as opposed to him being forced into it. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > 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). Nonsense. She’ll get all the sex she likes from men who are less prudent. He won’t get any sex at all, from any woman. I’m strongly reminded of the argument from some feminists that men should not have sex with women without having them sign a consent form, which ALSO would mean no sex for them. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > No, the woman was responsible because she aborted before there was a kid to support. Just like a man saying he’s not interested in having a child before there’s a kid to support. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/329 "2009-06-11T16:10:40Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And it hasn’t occurred to any of you deep thinkers yet that this is why society used to frown on non-marital sex? By society, you mean the same people who were having pre-marital sex in a different decade? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/330 "2009-06-11T16:11:53Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And it hasn’t occurred to any of you deep thinkers yet that this is why society used to frown on non-marital sex? Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you, as a shallow thinker, that there were kids born out of wedlock back then, too. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/331 "2009-06-11T16:15:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. She’ll get all the sex she likes from men who are less prudent. He won’t get any sex at all, from any woman. I don’t know why you say that. It’s not unimaginable that a guy can have a relationship with someone who has listened to his views, respects his position, and is willing to sign such a contract. If pre-nups don’t prevent marriages from taking place, I’m not sure why a similiar arrangement spells automatic doom. ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/332 "2009-06-11T16:31:21Z")
Proscriptions against extramarital sex have historically only really been applied to women, and was motivated not by concern for babies, but by the lack of paternity testing. The only way a man could ensure that his kids were his own was by making sure that his chattel wives were only having sex with him. Historically, there has not been much cultural concern about babies that _men_ create outside of marriage, nor has extramarital sex by men been particularly frowned upon. ---
**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 11, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/333 "2009-06-11T16:34:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > 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. > > . It’s silly that you keep denying the Court’s plain language in Roe v. Wade that makes your ad nauseum assertions untrue. And as long as you do, we’ve got nothing to discuss. When you acknowledge the facts before you, I’m on board. ---
**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 11, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/334 "2009-06-11T16:38:10Z")
Unless and until someone demonstrates with evidence that Roe v. Wade was decided exclusively for reasons that have zero to do with reproductive freedom, all arguments that dismiss the words of the court and assert something different are pointless. This is GD. Back up your assertions. You don’t, you aren’t debating and you need to head over to IMHO. ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/335 "2009-06-11T16:38:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you, as a shallow thinker, that there were kids born out of wedlock back then, too. More than now, as I recall the 50’s were a peak period for “illegitimate” children. What’s changed now is that people admit it; and for that matter are much more likely to live together without being married. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I don’t know why you say that. It’s not unimaginable that a guy can have a relationship with someone who has listened to his views, respects his position, and is willing to sign such a contract. If pre-nups don’t prevent marriages from taking place, I’m not sure why a similiar arrangement spells automatic doom. Because marriages aren’t at all the same thing. Because women tend to want sex to be at least somewhat romantic, and a consent form isn’t romantic. Because such a set up requires men to treat every woman as if she was the worst sort of woman, which they naturally would find insulting ( if I insisted that everyone who came to my home sign a statement that they wouldn’t steal my silverware, do you think I’d get many guests ? ). Because women want men to trust them, despite our system being set up so that men trusting women is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/336 "2009-06-11T16:48:09Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > By society, you mean the same people who were having pre-marital sex in a different decade? And somehow still managed not to have nearly as many illegitimate children as we have today? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/337 "2009-06-11T16:51:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you, as a shallow thinker, that there were kids born out of wedlock back then, too. Not nearly as many. It would be a very good thing for society to restore strong social pressure on women not to give birth out of wedlock. But that gets in the way of the left’s asinine, adolescent free love fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/338 "2009-06-11T16:57:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Proscriptions against extramarital sex have historically only really been applied to women, and was motivated not by concern for babies, but by the lack of paternity testing. The only way a man could ensure that his kids were his own was by making sure that his chattel wives were only having sex with him. > > Historically, there has not been much cultural concern about babies that _men_ create outside of marriage, nor has extramarital sex by men been particularly frowned upon. I assume you’re speaking \*ex cathedra \*again? ---
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/339 "2009-06-11T16:57:42Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > It’s silly that you keep denying the Court’s plain language in Roe v. Wade that makes your ad nauseum assertions untrue. What assertion is untrue? That women’s decisions affect men’s decisions as an indirect consequence of pregnancy taking place inside a woman’s body? You think this is contestable, _really?_ REALLY? ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/340 "2009-06-11T17:08:19Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And somehow still managed not to have nearly as many illegitimate children as we have today? Yes. And do you have evidence of that ? Hiding it as was the practice in the past does not mean the rate was lower. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=18)