# 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:** 18
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/341 "2009-06-11T17:13:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Sure, if you plan on plunking a contract right down in front her immediately prior to undressing, it’s not going to go well for you. I think we all agree with that. But I’m thinking at some point between “Hi, my name is **Der Trihs**. What’s yours?” and “Wanna go to my place (wink, wink)?” it’s not unreasonable that a conversation or two might take place, in which two adults can talk about their views on a very serious subject. Pre-nups aren’t very romantic either. But obviously people are able to use enough finesse to make them work, or else they would have gone out of style a long ago. If people care enough about their financial assets to take the time to get a pre-nup signed, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to care enough about unwanted fatherhood to get a pre-sex agreement signed. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/342 "2009-06-11T17:20:20Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Sure, if you plan on plunking a contract right down in front her immediately prior to undressing, it’s not going to go well for you. I think we all agree with that. > > But I’m thinking at some point between “Hi, my name is **Der Trihs**. What’s yours?” and “Wanna go to my place (wink, wink)?” it’s not unreasonable that a conversation or two might take place, in which two adults can talk about their views on a very serious subject. > > Pre-nups aren’t very romantic either. But obviously people are able to use enough finesse to make them work, or else they would have gone out of style a long ago. If people care enough about their financial assets to take the time to get a pre-nup signed, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to care enough about unwanted fatherhood to get a pre-sex agreement signed. Why, when the woman can always just walk out and find a man who won’t ask her to do any such thing ? Given that our system is set up so that he bears all the risks, why should she care ? ---
**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, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/343 "2009-06-11T17:23:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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 ? ). And I disagree with this too. Depending on how he handled himself and how much communication has gone on between the two, the more likely impression is that _he’s_ the worst sort of man. A woman with any sense or self-esteem with not see this contract as being a reflection on her. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/344 "2009-06-11T17:28:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. She’s using that money to raise the kid. If you have an issue with how the woman is using the money, and you’re the father, take it to court. Using such a blanket statement towards all women is insulting. And I insist, many times what the father gives is a portion of what the mother herself is spending in the child. I have a cousin who’s father (my cousin) sends $100 a month as child support to his ex-wife. No money given to support her education, no money set aside for savings, no clothes, nothing else he gives. Meanwhile he’s using the money to buy his luxuries. > [@](#): > > 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. He’ll get sex from women who understand his position. There are plenty of women in this board, for example, who have no desire for kids and will abort them too, if an accident where to happen. > [@](#): > > Just like a man saying he’s not interested in having a child before there’s a kid to support. Yea, which means the perfect time to do this is before the possibility for a kid to support comes. I can sort of understand claiming “biology isn’t fair” like **cosmodan** said earlier. Sorry, deal with it. Biology didn’t make me as fast or as strong or as tall as a guy (or even as the average woman). I have to deal with it, deal with yours. And I’m not THAT opposed to the idea of guys having the option to “opt out” in a kid, _provided it is a legal contract done before the sex that led to conception of a child happens._ Afterwards, no. The woman had no informed consent of what would happen. It would become a nightmare of “he said/she said” sues. Even if I’m taking steps to prevent conception, accidents happen. What will happen after that accident? I don’t know, I haven’t had any. Once upon a time I would’ve been more open towards abortion. Now, not necessarily. People change, events change, situations vary. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/345 "2009-06-11T17:28:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why, when the woman can always just walk out and find a man who won’t ask her to do any such thing ? Given that our system is set up so that he bears all the risks, why should she care ? Maybe, just maybe, because she cares about him and is not just out to have sex with just any ole person who is willing? Maybe? About men bearing all the risk: Show me one man who has died from an abortion or a pregnancy complication. ---
**Author:** ![xcalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/5daacb/32.png) [@xcalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/346 "2009-06-11T17:28:33Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > Yes, paternity registries are more or less a last resort for protecting unknown fathers from having their rights terminated by attempting to give them some means of receving actual notice, rather than just the constructive notice of intercourse. Tell you what, I’ll meet you halfway and acquiesce that you can terminate the rights of a father without his knowledge or permission in those circumstances where he’s failed to timely assert them, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When the father does assert his rights, he’s entitled to actual notification and a hearing. Yep, that sounds about right, though to be a bit nitpicky, the rights can still be terminated without his permission but he get’s to argue about it first. The father’s biology alone is not sufficient to get parental control and the must actively pursue them while the mother’s situation is a bit reversed. The mother’s biology is sufficient to get parental control and the state must actively pursue to remove them. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/347 "2009-06-11T17:33:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why, when the woman can always just walk out and find a man who won’t ask her to do any such thing ? Given that our system is set up so that he bears all the risks, why should she care ? Do you really then want to have sex with that woman? Or would you rather be a bit more discriminating and get all the hot sex you want with a woman who agrees with you in a very important issue, to the point of getting it be legally binding? All the risks of what? Pregnancy? Abortion? ---
**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, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/348 "2009-06-11T17:37:55Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And somehow still managed not to have nearly as many illegitimate children as we have today? Yes. And today we don’t have nearly as many shotgun weddings. Fair trade for all concerned, I’d say. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/349 "2009-06-11T17:47:22Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And I disagree with this too. Depending on how he handled himself and how much communication has gone on between the two, the more likely impression is that _he’s_ the worst sort of man. A woman with any sense or self-esteem with not see this contract as being a reflection on her. So your “solution” is a contract that according to you will make him look like scum, and according to me she’ll find insulting ? You destroy your own argument. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > She’s using that money to raise the kid. If you have an issue with how the woman is using the money, and you’re the father, take it to court. Like the court will care. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > He’ll get sex from women who understand his position. There are plenty of women in this board, for example, who have no desire for kids and will abort them too, if an accident where to happen. I don’t believe for one moment that any women would sign a contract to that effect. And how is a man to know the women you mention mean what they say ? Oh, right; he should just trust them, and if they betray that trust it’s HIS fault. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > Yea, which means the perfect time to do this is before the possibility for a kid to support comes. Except that women would never go along with that so it’s a non-solution. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Maybe, just maybe, because she cares about him and is not just out to have sex with just any ole person who is willing? Maybe? And is she going to care about him if he presents her with such an insult as a contract ? That contract is just a pretend solution, designed to make it look like men have a reasonable out; no woman would accept a man who showed up with one. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > About men bearing all the risk: Show me one man who has died from an abortion or a pregnancy complication. In this scenario the woman has already accepted that risk, as opposed to the man who is having it forced upon him. And I was talking about financial risks anyway. > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > Do you really then want to have sex with that woman? Or would you rather be a bit more discriminating and get all the hot sex you want with a woman who agrees with you in a very important issue, to the point of getting it be legally binding? I don’t believe that ANY woman would; it’s just another way of telling men to be celibate if they don’t want to risk their livelihoods. ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/350 "2009-06-11T17:48:14Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > 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? No, What is contestable is your assertion about the reasons the court used for making the decision. The question was “Does a woman have a right to terminate a pregnancy?” which is a question about the biological process happening in her body. The answer was “yes”. The court did not say “Because it’s her body and she can decide what to do with it.” The court did not say “Because it’s a medical issue and therefore she can decide what to do.” The court did not say “Because pregnancy happens in a woman’s body she can reject the pregnancy”. The court DID say, in very plain language available to read right here in this thread, that having a child can be a burden long **after it exits the womb** (you know, when it’s no longer inside her body and has nothing whatsoever to do with her body, but has everything to do with her life and her future and her money and her emotions and all kinds of other things that are **not** her body and **are** things which are also factors in mens lives) and **therefore** she has a right to reject that experience thorough termination of the pregnancy. Apart from Roe, (as has been shown in this thread with links and cites to 3rd party information from reliable sources, which is the way debate works) women also have a right to give away and abandon their babies in varying ways and with varying degrees of difficulty that men do not have at all unless and until a woman gives him that “right” by relinquishing her rights and responsibilities first, none of which has anything at all to do with control over one’s **body** , but has everything in the world to do with control over one’s decision to parent after the baby is outside the woman’s body, making it “reproductive choice”. Because these **facts** have been shown to BE **facts** , my opinion that the laws unjustly give women more rights to **reproductive choice** than men have, and give women unjust control over men’s **reproductive choice** , is legitimately formed. It is not about women’s bodies, it’s about reproductive choice. Women have it, men should too. In order for you to **debate** (this is Great Debates) you need to start by acknowledging the existence of these **facts** and the **fact** that these **facts** have been backed up with **cites** to reasonable and legitimates **sources**. After you have done that, you need to use cites to legitimate sources to show that these facts are not facts, or that other facts affect these facts. Failing that, you are pure opinion founded on nothing, and as such, not debatable. ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/351 "2009-06-11T17:53:19Z")
**Stoid** Have you read the progeny of _Roe_? Try _Akron_ and _Casey_. _Roe_ didn’t freeze the law on abortion for perpetuity. It’s pretty clear from those cases, I think, though I would have to reread them to be certain, that the constitutionality of abortion in the United States (or more appropriately the unconstitutionality of blanket bans) does indeed rest on factors including: > [@](#): > > “Because it’s her body and she can decide what to do with it.” … [and] … “Because it’s a medical issue and therefore she can decide what to do.” _Roe_ is odd, in that it has become symbolic, but it has been altered by following cases, and arguably the concurrence by Justice Stewart is more influential on current law than the opinion of the Court. ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/352 "2009-06-11T18:15:54Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > 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. Ah, yes. I’d forgotten the lost art, formerly common among women, of spontaneously terminating a pregnancy through sheer willpower. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/353 "2009-06-11T18:42:02Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > No, What is contestable is your assertion about the reasons the court used for making the decision. My assertion pertains to the _facts of life_, not to what the SCOTUS ruled. If Roe vs Wade was overturned tomorrow, women’s decisions would still impact men’s for the very same reason that they do today. Abortions are nothing new. If caught early enough, all a woman has to do is take a bunch of herbs or birth control pills and viola, her decision will be carrying consequences on a man’s potential decisions. All she has to do is starve herself, drink too much alcohol, or “accidentally” fall down the stairs to make " HER decisions imposed on HIM as well". And she could decide to do none of these things…still to the effect of a man’s potential decision. And? So? This is a fact of life that can not be legally fixed, no matter how much we bemoan it. ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/354 "2009-06-11T18:53:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And is she going to care about him if he presents her with such an insult as a contract ? That contract is just a pretend solution, designed to make it look like men have a reasonable out; no woman would accept a man who showed up with one. Do women who have chosen to sign pre-nups care about the men they’ll be marrying? I agree that any man who, apropos of nothing, just shows up at the door with a contract in hand will probably not be getting laid that night. But if he can’t be arsed to do a little preparation and talking with a potential lover, or at least confidently establish that she’s on the same page as him wrt abortion, then it might not be such a good idea to have sex with that woman. Really, it’s possible for a man to walk away from sex, you know. ---
**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, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/355 "2009-06-11T19:03:16Z")
> [@villa](#): > > **Stoid** > > Have you read the progeny of _Roe_? Try _Akron_ and _Casey_. _Roe_ didn’t freeze the law on abortion for perpetuity. It’s pretty clear from those cases, I think, though I would have to reread them to be certain, that the constitutionality of abortion in the United States (or more appropriately the unconstitutionality of blanket bans) does indeed rest on factors including: > . Of course it’s a factor, I haven’t denied that, and I’ll be the first to argue it if we were arguing about abortion. But the argument that others have tried to make in this thread is that it is the exclusive factor, when it plainly is 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 11, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/356 "2009-06-11T19:06:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > But the argument that others have tried to make in this thread is that it is the exclusive factor, when it plainly is not. I’m not arguing that it’s the exclusive, but rather it’s the only factor that counts. Women would not have “abortion rights” if pregnancy didn’t involve their bodies. ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/357 "2009-06-11T19:08:24Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > My assertion pertains to the _facts of life_, not to what the SCOTUS ruled. But what we’re arguing about is how the law treats the two sexes in connection with the facts of life, the facts being that people fucking can result in more human beings and sometimes the people who did the fucking don’t want to give birth to (women only) or otherwise be responsible for or to (both men and women) the human beings that end up being born. Your assertion is that all the law has been formulated based exclusively upon and about the issue of pregnancy itself, when it plainly has not. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/358 "2009-06-11T19:09:20Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > 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. > > 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. Actually I am about to have the 100% version, total hysterectomy/ovary removal … if they ain’t there they ain’t getting used =) Though I really do wish there was a reversable 100% version for both men and women … though the sci fi version where women get the menses turned off and reproduction stopped until they have their licensed sprog and then it gets turned off again is a great idea - I dont see why any woman has to be tormented every damned month by bleeding, pain, and issues like PCOS, endometriosis and whatnot … and I think you should have to pass some sort of certification before you can have a legal sprog. It should be required that you actually know how to raise a child healthily and intelligently. ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/359 "2009-06-11T19:14:57Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I’m not arguing that it’s the exclusive, but rather it’s the only factor that counts. > . And that would be your opinion, and an opinion which the facts show is a wrong opinion, since “what counts” is what the people who make the laws say counts, and they say differently than you do. If you have facts to prove that your opinion is correct, I’d be interested to see them. Absent that, I acknowledge that you have this opinion, and I understand what it is. I further state that because your opinion is undermined by the facts of the law, your opinion does not rate further discussion. ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/360 "2009-06-11T19:30:45Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > … and I think you should have to pass some sort of certification before you can have a legal sprog. It should be required that you actually know how to raise a child healthily and intelligently. So do I… but then, nobody knows how to do that before they have. Or even after they have. Anybody tells you he/she knows how to raise a child is lying 😛 [QUOTE=you with the face] I’m not arguing that it’s the exclusive, but rather it’s the only factor that counts. Women would not have “abortion rights” if pregnancy didn’t involve their bodies. [/QUOTE] I’m really having trouble following something here. To get back to your incubator hypo, do you really think if that were the case, the law would require every embryo to be hatched without the parents having a say in it at all ? That the state has a compelling interest to snatch unwanted embryos from the couple, grow 'em at the State Womb Facility, then chuck the baby back to the parents and tell 'em it’s their problem now, they’ve fucked in the bed and now must not sleep in it 'cause somebody’s teething ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=19)