# 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:** 2
**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 9, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/21 "2009-06-09T09:00:55Z")
> [@Renee](#): > > I basically agree with the OP, but I don’t get this “forcing women to put the babies up for adoption” thing. I think if the dad wants out, he should be able to get out, but why should he be able to force the woman to give up the child? Once he’s opted out, he gets no more say in anything to do with the child, right? What am I missing? And regarding more kids in foster care, I believe, at least in the US, babies up for adoption get snapped up pretty quickly. I can see this leading to more adoptions, but very much doubt that there is suddenly going to be such a glut of newborn babies that they languish in foster care for years. I don’t think he should be able to force the child to be put up for adoption, I think he should be able to simply “opt out” at an early stage, the same way a woman can. I think there should be a system in place where a woman must infomr a man if she’s pregnant, to give him the choice that early, and he signs a document that says he’s in or he’s out. And it has to be on her to inform him and give him the opportunity to legally give up his parental rights and responsiblities. If she fails to do so in a timely way, too bad for her. ---
**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 9, 2009, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/22 "2009-06-09T09:03:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > So I certainly claim the right to say “You want to keep it ? Fine. I don’t, I’m gone, we’d talked about this”. Asshole ? Probably. I can live with that. I will never understand why you would be considered an asshole for this by the same people who would fight to the death for a woman’s right to have an abortion. It boggles my mind. ---
**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 9, 2009, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/23 "2009-06-09T09:06:51Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Current law appears to regard economic freedom as being less protected than the personal freedom to control one’s own body. One’s economic situation is certainly a critical factor, but it’s NOT “your entire life.” You still have the right to live with or marry the woman, or not; to be involved in your children’s lives, or not; etc. A woman has all these rights too – the right to terminate a pregnancy is not coequal with these rights, and does not spring from the same considerations. The right to abortion arises from the right to privacy, to control one’s own body, and from the inevitable consequences of biology. > > The fact that abortion has economic consequences does NOT give other economic consequences, such as those of childbirth, the same standing as abortion. They’re different realms of law, which is as it should be. Remember, it isn’t ONLY the right to an abortion. Women ALSO have the right to give their children up for adoption, or, as I noted a few posts back, simply dump them at a hospital without even identifying themselves (safe harbor laws, not sure of the detail, except that they are designed to let women walk away extremely easily, the idea being better to let her drop it off anonymously than have her give birth in a bathroom and drown it, if that would be her inclination otherwise.) How can anyone defend the idea that men have NO choice at all? ---
**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 9, 2009, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/24 "2009-06-09T09:16:44Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Current law appears to regard economic freedom as being less protected than the personal freedom to control one’s own body. One’s economic situation is certainly a critical factor, but it’s NOT “your entire life.” You still have the right to live with or marry the woman, or not; to be involved in your children’s lives, or not; etc. A woman has all these rights too – the right to terminate a pregnancy is not coequal with these rights, and does not spring from the same considerations. The right to abortion arises from the right to privacy, to control one’s own body, and from the inevitable consequences of biology. > > The fact that abortion has economic consequences does NOT give other economic consequences, such as those of childbirth, the same standing as abortion. They’re different realms of law, which is as it should be. My objection has nothing to do with the economical aspect of the alimony. Nor is my adamant refusal to spawn an economical decision. Rather, I’m really concerned about being in a situation akin to the one of the guy in the OP, i.e. despite having mutually agreed to terminate an eventual unwanted pregnancy (and I wouldn’t have sex with someone not agreeing on this), my partner decides not to when fetus ensues, for whatever reason. This, that his to say, her decision, saddles \*me \*with huge burdens - the guilt of having introduced someone to the sick joke that is life, for one. But most importantly, the responsibility to make sure the child has a functional childhood. That isn’t likely to happen with me anywhere in his life in any position. Whether I’m “out there” and just cutting checks, or out there and in jail, or in there and hating him (and/or his mother) or in there and loving both of them, that kid will have a fucked up father, hence a fucked up childhood, hence a fucked up life. I mean, even more fucked up than the baseline. The only way my child could have a passable childhood would be with his mother and another daddy (or a second mommy, works too), or the foster care of people who’ll both want him. Or not being born, obviously (but I already said I wouldn’t claim the right to force that). And I can’t really ask the law to get her another mommy/daddy for my child, can I ? Note that I’m even more terrified of the similar, but malicious scenario, i.e. my partner deliberately deceiving me in order to bear a child from me, even though I consider it about as likely as me finding religion. Aaanyway, rambling. And I know I’m not exactly the typical case. Which… doesn’t help me processing the fear that I might just get cosmically screwed with no recourse at pretty much anytime. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/25 "2009-06-09T09:20:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No woman can force a man to get her pregnant against his will. Yes she can. She can lie about being on the Pill or using another form of female birth control, she can poke a hole in a condom, fish a used condom out of the trash, or give a man a handjob and use that. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Men have total control over what they stick their dicks in, and they are responsible for their own sperm. Trying to call it an issue of “reproductive choice” is a fucking joke. These guys made their choice. The assertion made in the brief that abortion rights have anything to do with a presumed right to fuck without consequences is a laughable load of crap, and the Court rightly rejected it as the garbage that it is. Abortion rights is not about contraception, but about physical autonomy over one’s own body. You think abortion isn’t about the ability to fuck without consequences? You’re telling me that most women want to have abortions just to avoid strechmarks or something, and that it has nothing to do with not wanting or being ready to raise a child? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Men have exactly the same autonomy, and they are exercising it when they decide to put their sperm inside someone else’s body. > > Making it legal for men to abandon their children is not going to decrease unwanted pregnancies, it’s telling them they no longer have any responsibility at all, and it places 100% of the responsibility completely on women. > > I don’t care if a woman lies to a guy to get pregnant. Tough fucking titty. He’s still the one who’s responsible for his own sperm and his own offspring, and it’s recklessly _ir_responsible for him to take his partner’s word about birth control. > > He makes his decision when he ejaculates. He is responsible for his own children. If he tries to run, he should be hunted down like a dog. THAT’S what’s going to reduce unwanted pregnancies is actually making an effort to make these sleazeballs accountable, not just telling women they’re on their own. I think that’s a hateful, misogynistic, backwards-ass attitude (and I don’t care that the OP is a woman), but beyond that, it’s an incredibly shitty thing to do to the children, The vast, vast majority of people in modern America and Europe have sexual relations before marriage, with no intention of having a child. Having sex is not a decision to have a child. Men who have sex without wanting a child are not “sleazeballs,” and if they are then most men are sleazeballs and so are most women. No, men should not be be able to abandon their children. If a man and a women both agree to have a child, then once that decision is made he should be in it for the full 18 years. The woman would not be left with 100% of the responsibility. She would have the exact same responsibility as the man, which is to find a partner who is willing to voluntarily decide to have a child with her. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/26 "2009-06-09T10:06:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Based on…? > > And maybe not of all pregnancies, but of pregnancies occurring in unmarried women under the age of 25? I’m guessing a good number. And under the age of 20? LOTS. And OVER the age of 35? A number again. > > I’m a woman. I know women. Trust me, Dio…we are a cunning lot. No moreso than men, Stoid. Men have controlled women through pregnancy since time began. If every time a sex act resulted in the embryo taking purchase in _either_ the man or the woman’s body, the rules regarding abortion and child support would be the same regardless of which party carries the pregnancy. Becoming a parent or being financially responsible for a person you don’t want to be responsible for is a separate argument from the abortion question and the right to control one’s body. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/27 "2009-06-09T10:26:13Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Why do I get to fuck whomever I please, get pregnant as many times as possible and either abort, give up for adoption, or EVEN drop my baby off at a hospital without so much as a note and walk away…but the very nice fellow who wore a condom that slipped off has NO choice at all and MUST be tied to that child financially for the next 18 years? > > Please, without getting all gooey over the poor neglected babies, since you don’t get all gooey over them when I’m killing and abandoning and giving them away, explain why this is just? Actually, it’s not that easy. When it comes to adoption, theoretically, the father can take custody instead and then collect child support from the mother. So it’s not as if a mother can just give up her child whenever she wants. She can still be responsible for it. She’s not the only one who decides if it gets adopted or not. And those laws about dropping off babies at hospitals apply to anyone, no questions asked. It doesn’t mean that the baby is officially abandoned. Sometimes the baby’s parents are found, etc. It’s just a way to drop off the child without the parent being afraid of legal repercussions. (At least, I’m pretty sure–others may correct me here.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/28 "2009-06-09T13:51:48Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Of course it’s about contraception! It is about not wanting the conceived, not asserting some misty principle. > > And a woman can have an abortion if contraception fails. She can also give the baby up for adoption. And a man can do…nothing. False. You don’t need to stick it in. That’s 100% effective. You can use various contraceptives such as spermicide, condoms, and the like to vastly improve your odds if you do. You can do these things regardless of if the female uses contraceptive. You can pick females that use contraceptives too. If you’re some stupid loser who impregnated against vast odds, well you took the risks when you had sex. It isn’t fair you can’t opt out of herpes either. Sex has risks. 18 years of deflated bank account disease is one of them. To try to dodge out of the responsibility for the life one co-creates makes one a dishonorable dishonorable selfish stupid asshole. Abortion is about woman’s control over their own bodies, and was initially allowed for privacy, not contraceptive rights. You seem to think that this situation should be equalized somehow. Well I’ve got news for you buddy. You should have been born a bloody seahorse. Humans are placental mammals. The female’s body pays a much greater role in reproduction. So of course she’s going to have more control of the whole process. You are very happy a mother may have her kid taken by the state, not because of any danger she posed tot he kid, but because some cheap asshole wants to save a few bucks. I spite on the idea. It takes on a piss on all that’s decent. I say again you’re happy a kid is going to grow up in a foster home, without even one loving parent. Such an idea is scornful beyond belief and can only be properly critiqued in the pit, someone who’d rejoyce in it isn’t worth the effort. ---
**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 9, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/29 "2009-06-09T14:05:22Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You mean, the same way it’s legal for me to abandon mine? It’s not legal for you to abandon yours. > [@](#): > > Why do I get to fuck whomever I please, get pregnant as many times as possible and either abort, give up for adoption, or EVEN drop my baby off at a hospital without so much as a note and walk away…but the very nice fellow who wore a condom that slipped off has NO choice at all and MUST be tied to that child financially for the next 18 years? You can’t give the baby up for adoption without the father’s permission. Either parent can drop the baby off at a hospital. You have no rights that a man doesn’t have. Abortion rights about about your right to determine what happens to your own body, not about responsibility for a baby. > [@](#): > > Please, without getting all gooey over the poor neglected babies, since you don’t get all gooey over them when I’m killing and abandoning and giving them away, explain why this is just? It’s illegal for you to kill them, you can’t put them up for adoption withouut the father’s permission and either parent can drop them off at safe havens. Forgive me if I care more about the babies then I do about some irresponsible skeeveball that doesn’t want to wear a rubber. ---
**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 9, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/30 "2009-06-09T14:18:19Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Based on…? What are you basing YOUR assertion on? You made the ludicrous claim that making it legal for men to abandon their children would reduce unwanted pregnancies. That assertion is based on what empirical data? > [@](#): > > And maybe not of all pregnancies, but of pregnancies occurring in unmarried women under the age of 25? I’m guessing a good number. And under the age of 20? LOTS. And OVER the age of 35? A number again. You’re guessing based on what data? > [@](#): > > I’m a woman. I know women. Trust me, Dio…we are a cunning lot. I’m a man. Men are horny pigs. Your assertions about women are based on nothing and do not accord with my own life experience with women, but I basically don’t CARE. Even if women are all calculating, evil bitches out to trap jpobless, shiftless losers into getting them pregnant, that’s too damn bad for the guy. He is ultimately responsible for what he sticks his dick in. It’s irrlevant what she told him. If the condom slips off, you stop and put on another one (and you can always tell, don’t believe any guy who tells you he couldn’t tell). If birth control fails, oh well, that’s the risk he knowingly accepted when he stuck his dick in her. There is no such thing as a right to risk-free sex. It certainly makes no sense to put 100% of the financial responsibility for children onto mothers. What kind of fucked up, bullshit system would that be? Sorry, but I cannot come close to agreeing with you on this. I despise men who abandon their children. They will never get any sympathy from me. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/31 "2009-06-09T14:18:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve seen this debate several times on the SDMB and I’m always surprised by how many people actually find this position reasonable and just. > > There will not be real equality on this issue because the reality of biology dictates there cannot be. Finding new ways to rephrase the argument won’t change that fact. > > Men and women are equal in the decision to have sex and risk an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy only occurs within the body of women so from the discovery of pregnancy to it’s termination or culmination in birth the decision is the womans. After a birth a new person, the baby, has to be considered and cared for. The question is who is responsible for the care of this new member of society. We’ve reached the simplest and most obvious conclusion as a society. Those responsible are the two people who made the first decision to have sex and risk reproduction contributing equally to the DNA of said child. IMO there’s no way to grant what some mistakenly call equal reproductive rights for men without seriously upsetting the balance we’ve reached and creating more injustice while rhetorically using justice as a justification. Very well put, and I agree wholeheartedly. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/32 "2009-06-09T14:23:41Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Abortion is about woman’s control over their own bodies, and was initially allowed for privacy, not contraceptive rights. You seem to think that this situation should be equalized somehow. Well I’ve got news for you buddy. You should have been born a bloody seahorse. Humans are placental mammals. The female’s body pays a much greater role in reproduction. So of course she’s going to have more control of the whole process. Of course it’s not about contraceptive rights. Similarly, when Shylock insisted on his pound of flesh it was all about upholding the integrity of contract law - the inevitable death of Antonio that would follow was nothing more than a tragic unavoidable consequence. Try that “should have been born a bloody seahorse” line on a woman who argues that it’s unfair that a foetus should be able to draw sustenance from her when she doesn’t want it to, and see how far you get. Tell her that it’s just a fact of nature that a man is physically able to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, and a woman isn’t. Tell her that humans are placental mammals. Then, I think, you’ll find that biological unfairness is something to be corrected by surgical intervention, and not just something that you have to put up with. Sauce for the goose, anyone? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/33 "2009-06-09T14:25:52Z")
Before there is a baby, both parties are equal. Man decides whether to provide genetic material. Woman decides whether to provide genetic material and provide incubation for fetus. Each party therefore determines whether it will play the biological role in the potential creation of a baby. After there is a baby, both parties are equal. Both can drop the newborn off. Both must consent to put the child up for adoption. If one chooses adoption, and the other wants custody, the non-custodial parent has a financial responsibility to that child up to age 18. It always amazes me that people see inequality here. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/34 "2009-06-09T14:27:26Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Current law appears to regard economic freedom as being less protected than the personal freedom to control one’s own body. One’s economic situation is certainly a critical factor, but it’s NOT “your entire life.” You still have the right to live with or marry the woman, or not; to be involved in your children’s lives, or not; etc. A woman has all these rights too – the right to terminate a pregnancy is not coequal with these rights, and does not spring from the same considerations. The right to abortion arises from the right to privacy, to control one’s own body, and from the inevitable consequences of biology. > > The fact that abortion has economic consequences does NOT give other economic consequences, such as those of childbirth, the same standing as abortion. They’re different realms of law, which is as it should be. Good points. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/35 "2009-06-09T14:28:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No woman can force a man to get her pregnant against his will. Men have total control over what they stick their dicks in, and they are responsible for their own sperm. Trying to call it an issue of “reproductive choice” is a fucking joke. These guys made their choice. The assertion made in the brief that abortion rights have anything to do with a presumed right to fuck without consequences is a laughable load of crap, and the Court rightly rejected it as the garbage that it is. Abortion rights is not about contraception, but about physical autonomy over one’s own body. Men have exactly the same autonomy, and they are exercising it when they decide to put their sperm inside someone else’s body. No man can force a woman to get pregnant against her will. Women have total control over who they fuck, and they are responsible for their own eggs. Trying to call it an issue of “reproductive choice” is a fucking joke. These girls made their choice. . . See how easy that is? I can’t come up with a logical argument why women should have “one more chance” to not be a parent than men. Using the “dirty sluts” defense just makes me wonder why the same doesn’t apply to her, and therefore why is abortion okay? I don’t think men’s choice should be indefinite - six weeks before viability, perhaps, in writing and legally binding, so she can decide if she wants to make it a go as a single mother. That’s the thing, really. His choice affects her choice, and I’d rather see it an open and informed choice. Knowing the burden you’ll bear makes that bearing more bearable. It’s not like there aren’t deadbeat parents in our current system, it’s that we babymamas are \*surprised \*to find ourselves with one of the deadbeats. When I was pregnant, I’d much rather have gotten an honest, legally binding, “You know, I’m not going to be a parent to this baby, if you want to do this, you’re on your own,” rather than all the promises and societal expectations that of course we were doing this together. It might not have changed my mind about keeping the baby, but it would have saved me the money on lawyers and the troubles of unrealized financial expectations AND my son’s mental anguish around the whole issue of why his father can’t keep a promise. The idea that we need two adults contributing to the financial care of every child is belied by the thousands of single parents who don’t get child support, and also by the parents supporting multiple children. > [@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? Who’s asking for easy and casual? I want lawyers involved, man. I want paternal rights severed along with those responsibilities. But yes, I’d assume a finite number of women would chose abortion or adoption if legally informed by their partner that they intend to sever their paternal rights and responsibilities. And I’d assume fewer women would put pinholes in the condom or leave the diaphragm in the nightstand, were they to know they couldn’t keep a man tied to them by creating a pregnancy. Would it be a lot? I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/36 "2009-06-09T14:33:37Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Of course it’s not about contraceptive rights. Similarly, when Shylock insisted on his pound of flesh it was all about upholding the integrity of contract law - the inevitable death of Antonio that would follow was nothing more than a tragic unavoidable consequence. > > Try that “should have been born a bloody seahorse” line on a woman who argues that it’s unfair that a foetus should be able to draw sustenance from her when she doesn’t want it to, and see how far you get. Tell her that it’s just a fact of nature that a man is physically able to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, and a woman isn’t. Tell her that humans are placental mammals. Then, I think, you’ll find that biological unfairness is something to be corrected by surgical intervention, and not just something that you have to put up with. Sauce for the goose, anyone? Sorry don’t fly. The deadbeat had his choice when he decided to stick it in. Both he and the woman now share responsibility for their choices. The difference is the woman also rights over her own body that supersede the fetus. If males were the ones who got pregnant then they’d have those rights. ---
**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 9, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/37 "2009-06-09T14:36:18Z")
There are so many fake arguments in this thread it’s hard to even know where to start. Can we just stop making stuff up, guys? Let’s see: 1. If you “don’t want kids, never wanted kids and never will want kids” there isn’t “nothing” you can do. There is a quick, safe, and often reversible procedure that is almost certain to ensure that your life is never “ruined” by some pill-tossing condom-poking temptress. Too extreme? Well, have a lawyer draft some kind of “pre-sex” agreement. Yeah, it will probably send the girls running. That’s because it’s kind of a dick move. But you knew that. 1. **WOMEN HAVE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, TOO**. Goodness. Child support is not some man-only thing. Countless fathers collect child support from deadbeat mothers. I know a few myself. Stop framing child-support itself as some big anti-man conspiracy. If you don’t want to pay child support, you have an equal opportunity to try to get custody and start collecting your own child support. 2. You can’t give a baby up for adoption without both parents’ permission. If the mother gives up care of the child, you are free to take custody and collect child support. If an abandon baby has a known father, they will find you and give you the choice to take custody and collect child supportr. 3. Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with children. It is not about your right to have or not have children. It is about your right to decide if you want to be pregnant. That children are a result of this has nothing to do with anything. ---
**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 9, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/38 "2009-06-09T14:37:24Z")
> [@riker1384](#): > > Yes she can. She can lie about being on the Pill or using another form of female birth control, she can poke a hole in a condom, fish a used condom out of the trash, or give a man a handjob and use that. These are all far-fetched, bullshit, made up scenarios that don’t happen, but even if they did, too fucking bad for the guy. He needs to be responsible for the care and disposition of his own sperm. He needs to supervise his own condoms and dispose of them correctly. These are preposterous hypotheses anyway, but they still represent nothing a man can’t guard against if he wants to, and even failed birth contril is an assumed risk of intercourse, The guy doesn’t have a right to any guarantees. > [@](#): > > You think abortion isn’t about the ability to fuck without consequences? You think an abortion isn’t a consequence? > [@](#): > > You’re telling me that most women want to have abortions just to avoid strechmarks or something, and that it has nothing to do with not wanting or being ready to raise a child? If you’ll read what I said, I said abortion RIGHTS were not about birth control. The reason women have a RIGHT to abort has nothing to do with birth control, but with bodily autonomy. Men have absolute bodily autonomy too. They control what they stick their dicks in, and what happens to their sperm. A woman’s options continue after conception only because it continues to involve her _body_ after conception. If you think that isn’t fair, it’s only because the _biology_ isn’t fair – and it’s much more unfair to the woman than it is to the man. > [@](#): > > The vast, vast majority of people in modern America and Europe have sexual relations before marriage, with no intention of having a child. Having sex is not a decision to have a child. Men who have sex without wanting a child are not “sleazeballs,” and if they are then most men are sleazeballs and so are most women. Men who think they have a right to have sex without any assumed risk are sleazeballs. UIt’s irrelevant that they don’t want a child. When they put their sperm in a fertile woman’s body, they are knowingly assuming a risk of pregnancy. They are assuming any potential liability. > [@](#): > > No, men should not be be able to abandon their children. Then why are you arguing that they should? > [@](#): > > If a man and a women both agree to have a child, then once that decision is made he should be in it for the full 18 years. The woman would not be left with 100% of the responsibility. She would have the exact same responsibility as the man, which is to find a partner who is willing to voluntarily decide to have a child with her. It couldn’t be less relevant if the man wanted it. If he makes a baby, he’s responsible for it. The end. He knew that possibility existed from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/39 "2009-06-09T14:46:05Z")
[QUOTE=Nat Center for Men] A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother. [/QUOTE] This is impossible because of physiological differences between men and women – specifically with regard to who has a womb (with the exception of trans people). As has been said, abortion is about bodily autonomy. It is about the right of a woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term. This right only concerns females. When men can gestate babies in some sort of artificial womb, they can have all the abortions they want. As for child support, that is not about the evil cunning woman. It is about the child’s survival. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/40 "2009-06-09T14:48:22Z")
I am also ever surprised to see these kinds of arguments rear their ugly heads. There are many things that can happen to a woman’s body that a man may have to bear the costs of. This does not give the man any more control or “rights” than he would have in the case of reproduction. Obviously the reverse is also true. The case of reproduction is no different in any way while the child is in utero. The fact that the man was a proximate cause in the pregnancy is no more relevant than the case where the man is a proximate cause in something else that might affect the woman’s body, and again, vice versa. What occurs when the child is born is equally obvious. You can’t abjure your obligations to the child any more than you could to a person whom you struck in a car accident. Regardless of your intention, you were a but for cause of the accident and as such, have well-defined obligations. You may object because holistically, reproduction just feels _different_ than forcing a woman to have a medical treatment she does not want due to religious beliefs or hitting someone with a car. And it’s true, they are different. But if you break the problem down into two phases, in utero and post birth, the problem becomes a whole lot simpler. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=3)