# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/441 "2009-06-13T00:20:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It’s funny how this possibility is treated like a small town tragedy throughout the thread. Like the very thought of a man not getting any is supposed to make us lose sleep at night. Why the fuck should society care if these contracts are mood-breakers? If we’re concerned about unwanted pregnancies, that’s probably a good thing. Much preferable to using female abortion as a form of contraception. I don’t give a damn if nobody ever has unmarried sex again. But the issue isn’t about that, is it? If the contract is a pain in the ass, men will just use it to _wipe_ their ass, and then go an and have casual sex to their heart’s content and then try to dodge paying child care to any bastards they sire. Maybe they’ll be lucky and be real poor so that they hardly end up having to pay anything anyway! The problem with formal pre-coital opt-out contracts isn’t that it’ll stifle casual sex. The problem is it _won’t_. It won’t accomplish anything at _all_. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Speaking of female abortions, do you think female abortions _aren’t_ mood-breakers? Welcome to the land of consequences. Damn, you’re right! No woman who would ever have an abortion ever has unmarried sex. Clearly. Cause the deal is broken, you see? Sorry, no. Things that you maybe might have to do after sex aren’t going to be as big a smack in the face as things you have to find a notary for at 11pm on a saturday _before_ sex. Yet another crappy analogy. Don’t let reality hit you on the way out. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Which is why you shouldn’t have a problem signing a opt-out contract. I’d have a problem finding a way to make the thing _legal_. It’s not something you write on a cocktail napkin - it’s got to be legally sturdy enough to counteract all of child/parent responsibility law! I’d be surprised if even a signature alone would be considered binding - having three drunks and a bribed barman witnessing it may not even suffice! > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Trust me, your argument that all the willing, _truly_ responsible fathers out there who want kids and want to do right by them should have to go through the bereaucratic hazzle of “opting-in” just so that their lazier, more risk-averse brethren can take the more convenient route of not doing anything but sit on their ass and fuck without saying so much as a “how do ya do?” to their partners is seriously NOT going to help advance the male “abortion” cause. Any judge worth his robe will chuck his gavel at you just as soon as the words “…but a opt-out contract is a mood-breaker! Opting-in is better because I can still fuck as many women as I want and I won’t have to sign anything, either!!!” are whined. Pay attention. **Opt-out will not work. Opt-out is dumb. Opt-out will not deter casual sex. Nobody will use it.** Opt-out simply isn’t an option. It’s to this issue wat Separate But Equal was to equal rights. It’s a sop that sounds all well and good but will be ultimately ineffective and allow the status quo to go on as it was. It’s a way for the anti-side to get the pro-side to sabotage themselves. Nothing more. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I suspect that most of the people sympathetic to men in this thread don’t even think this “opt-in” idea should be implemented, and probably wish you’d stop advocating it because you’re making their side look like a parody of itself. Opt-out **is** a parody of itself. Opt-in, at least, is not, and has the advantage of at least _addressing_ the inequality that this thread is about, in a functionally effective way. It may not be perfect - but it’s a _viable_ alternative - if not politically likely because it’s much more politically viable to piss on the rights of slutty men. Maybe the teeming half-dozen reading this thread get that - maybe they don’t. (Some certainly don’t care given that they’re in favor of pissing on the men regardless of everyting else.) Regardless, I will leave it up to them to make, and express, their own opinions. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/442 "2009-06-13T00:27:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > false. The\* law\* gives women the power based on the realities of biology. The _law_ makes men responsible based on the same. The biology’s the same now? Or does that toggle to match your convenience? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sure, but the equity needs to be based in reality. what’s as equitable as we can get based on the biological reality. What’s best for the people involved and society as a whole? What we have now is what the law has decided is best. I know injustices occur but basically, I think it’s as equitable as it can be based on biological reality and the principles of law. This same argument could have been, and probably was, given to support slavery. Look. The law currently provides an unequal situation. This is based in part on the biology (though I strongly suspect it’s more based on the historical precedent that women didn’t hold jobs and thus _needed_ support), but the law need not be dictated by the biology (or historical precedent). The law can change. It probably won’t - nobody likes deadbeat dads, those losers, let’s shoot 'em all and put their heads on pikes, castrate their corpses, seize their property and give it all to the baby - but that doesn’t mean the issue is handled in an inherently optimal manner at present. ---
**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 13, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/443 "2009-06-13T00:41:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Not exactly but they can be. Since we weren’t planning to have a child it seems fairly logical that we didn’t want one at the time. The point is when faced with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy you have to make choices. Even if you didn’t want the child and the child places a financial burden on you it’s still very possible with the correct attitude to have a good relationship with your offspring and have them be a boon to your life rather than a curse. I understand feelings of anger, bitterness, and resentment, but it’s up to the man to hold on to those and wallow in them or make the best out of the situation. I know that’s harder for some than for others. > > My youngest daughter was the product of a romantic fling rather than a long term relationship. I didn’t want another child since I was already paying child support. I asked the Mom about getting an abortion and she said she couldn’t do it. Fast forward 20+ years. I have an awesome daughter who makes a contribution to my life and the lives of many others. 20 years of child support wasn’t easy but I managed and she sure as hell is worth every penny. Good for you. (no sarcasm, no snark) > [@](#): > > Sure people feel differently about it , men and women. The point is that it can be , for some women, such a momentous event that even though she thought she didn’t want a child and would probably terminate , before she got pregnant, she might well change her mind once she discovers she is. A conversation where both agree they don’t want kids is okay but far from a guarantee. Any reasonable guy ought to know that. Yes, I know. Which is precisely _why_ I want a more serious way out. > [@](#): > > Good for you. I’m sure some girls feel the same way and feel safe with the precautions they are taking. Has anyone ever been turned off by your honesty? I assume you don’t carry a contract around right? No, I don’t carry a contract around :D. Like I said, that’s just cold, even to jerkass me. As for women turned off by my honesty, sure, in different ways. Well, less often than by my _face_, but… 🙂 > [@](#): > > OKay. I’m just saying that realistically, there can be a cost for avoiding parental responsibility that is just as costly as child support for a kid you didn’t plan on or want. Men who justify avoiding child support can pay in other ways. As I said earlier, yeah, no matter what the outcome, there’ll always be a cost. Even for abortion. And I don’t mean only in a financial sense, either. But not all costs are equivalent for everyone. > [@](#): > > Even with you being so upfront it’s possible an accident could happen and your partner changes her mind about termination. Then you’d be faced with how to deal with it. Yup, trust me, I know. Which is exactly why I’m so concerned about the next time. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/444 "2009-06-13T00:58:25Z")
I would like to note that while the _pre-coital_ opt-out is nothing but a fraudulent argument used to pretend that you’re addressing the issue of equality while actually intending to reject it in all practical terms, _post_ coital is not necessarily so dishonest. If the man were given time and notice comparable to the woman’s window to initiate an abortion, it would satisfy the equal rights issue without necessarily being so arduous to render itself irrelevent, like pre-coital opt-out would tend to. The problems with post-coital opt-out are based in the “notice” aspect - and the question of “why wait?” Regarding the notice, it could be dodgy at best. Pregnancies aren’t detectable immediately, and while the woman might know you were responsible, you might not - and she need not tell you. And worse, she could _claim_ she had! I predict legal complications. Unnecessary ones, from my view. The other thing is, if the man does his paperwork, opt-out is indeed exactly equivalent in effect to opt-in. So, why prefer the former over the latter? The main answer I’ve seen here has been along the lines of “let’s lay a trap and see how many of those slutty men we can catch, heh heh heh.” The idea is to punish irresponsibility - but not the irresponsibility that got the woman pregnant in the first place. Irresponsibility in _filing the paperwork afterward_. Now, that’s just odd. What’s the purpose of that? Well, to try to bypass the opt-out as much as possible, obviously - based on things that have nothing to do with the actual infraction you wish to discourage. Which seems a little dodgy from the perspective of equal rights. In my opinion. ---
**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 13, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/445 "2009-06-13T01:08:28Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Yet the mother does not necessarily agree to that same obligation when she lets him come inside her, does she? She has several ways to opt out, and her responsibility is not de facto dictated by the fact that she had unprotected sex. Do you not see the double standard there? I can’t speak for **Dio** but I certainly don’t. The fetus is growing inside the woman. It’s her body, and because of that she’s entitled to more control of the process. Think that’s a bugger? Take it up with the early mammalian ancestors that evolved internal reproduction. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/446 "2009-06-13T04:02:25Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I can’t speak for **Dio** but I certainly don’t. The fetus is growing inside the woman. It’s her body, and because of that she’s entitled to more control of the process. Think that’s a bugger? Take it up with the early mammalian ancestors that evolved internal reproduction. The thing is, it isn’t mammalian reproduction that allows women to opt out of motherhood. Biology, without legal or medical intervention, does not allow a woman to opt out of being a mother once she conceives. We have since developed ways of allowing this to happen, rights which we grant women to exercise but not men. Diogenes is saying that having sex with a woman, regardless of any efforts he may have made to prevent conception, confers de facto responsibility on a man for 18-21 years for the offspring that result. Women have ways of opting out of that responsibility, conferred on them by technology and the law. That is a double standard, and it could be remedied by the law. Those are just facts. If you think that the law should not offer such remedies, fine, but don’t claim it’s because of biology, because it’s 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 13, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/447 "2009-06-13T04:38:36Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Biology, without legal or medical intervention, does not allow a woman to opt out of being a mother once she conceives. We have since developed ways of allowing this to happen, rights which we grant women to exercise but not men. We’ve always had abortion. Always. “We have _since_ developed…” is a disingenuous statement. And your statement about biology strongly suggests that you don’t understand what the word biology means. The fact that _medical intervention_ can allow a woman to “opt out” while it doesn’t for men is, like, the whole entire point. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/448 "2009-06-13T04:48:01Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > We’ve always had abortion. Always. “We have _since_ developed…” is a disingenuous statement. > > And your statement about biology strongly suggests that you don’t understand what the word biology means. The fact that _medical intervention_ can allow a woman to “opt out” while it doesn’t for men is, like, the whole entire point. I thought you weren’t going to engage me. Huh. Guess you just couldn’t resist. Also can’t resist a snide dig about my understanding of the word biology. I’m just going to make a simple point here, and resist further engagement with you, since you obviously can’t and won’t argue in good faith with me. Abortion happens to be legal in our society, as are adoption and the safe haven, neither of which are biological. Men have no legally allowed option to opt out of responsibility for a child after conception. A legal option could be created. Do you dispute that? If not, then you are not disputing my point, which is that it is not biology alone that confers on women the sole right to opt out of parenthood. It’s also very much the law that allows it, and that could be changed. ---
**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 13, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/449 "2009-06-13T05:17:45Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I thought you weren’t going to engage me. Huh. Guess you just couldn’t resist. Also can’t resist a snide dig about my understanding of the word biology. I’m just going to make a simple point here, and resist further engagement with you, since you obviously can’t and won’t argue in good faith with me. No I couldn’t resist. Guilty as charged. > [@](#): > > Abortion happens to be legal in our society, as are adoption and the safe haven, neither of which are biological. Abortion is the only one of these three activities that is associated with gender inequality. Coincidentally, abortion also is the only one that is a product of biology. > [@](#): > > Men have no legally allowed option to opt out of responsibility for a child after conception. A legal option could be created. Do you dispute that? A legal option could in theory be created for anything. So no I don’t dispute this. Calling this an abortion is a misnomer, of course. Him opting out of his parental responsibilities will not prevent a child from being born like a female abortion will. Child support is kind of a moot issue when there is no child to support. > [@](#): > > If not, then you are not disputing my point, which is that it is not biology alone that confers on women the sole right to opt out of parenthood. But after the point at which biology makes the genders different (i.e. pregnancy), both men and women can opt out of parenthood via the same legal mechanisms. So this statement of yours is essentially meaningless. The rights between men and women diverge exactly at the moment her body becomes intertwined with the conceptus’ life (i.e. biology). When the baby is born, she no longer has rights that the man doesn’t have. And previous to a conception, she doesn’t have rights that he doesn’t have. Claiming that reasons other than biology allow women to exercise all this power implies that the state of being pregnant is a minor issue when it comes to deciding the fate of a pregnancy. This makes no sense whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/450 "2009-06-13T05:21:59Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > But after the point at which biology makes the genders different (i.e. pregnancy), both men and women can opt out of parenthood via the same legal mechanisms. So this statement of yours is essentially meaningless. This is false. A woman can have an abortion and the biological father cannot stop her, legally, even if he is willing to shoulder the entire burden of being a parent. A woman can choose not to tell the baby’s father that she’s pregnant at all. If she does this, the man cannot assert any parental rights he might want to have. Then, she can give the child up for adoption, use the safe haven option, etc. Men have no such choices. > [@](#): > > When the baby is born, she no longer has rights that the man doesn’t have. And previous to a conception, she doesn’t have rights that he doesn’t have. See above. > [@](#): > > Claiming that reasons other than biology allow women to exercise all this power implies that the state of being pregnant is a minor issue when it comes to deciding the fate of a pregnancy. This makes no sense whatsoever. No one is talking about the fate of a pregnancy. We are talking about legal ways to opt out of the responsibilities of parenthood if they are unwanted, after conception. The “abortion” of the thread title is clearly metaphorical and not biological, hence this is a legal discussion, not one about biology. It is giving a man a legal opt-out that a woman cannot contest, just as a woman has legal opt-outs that a man cannot contest. ---
**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 13, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/451 "2009-06-13T05:39:39Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > This is false. A woman can have an abortion and the biological father cannot stop her. Of course he can’t. Because doing so would interfere with her right to control her own body. How does this contradict my assertion that their rights diverge the moment her body becomes intertwined with the conceptus’s life? It seems to support it. > [@](#): > > A woman can choose not to tell the baby’s father that she’s pregnant at all. If she does this, the man cannot assert any parental rights me might want to have. What does this have to do with legal rights? Sounds like this is a consequence of women having insider knowledge that men do not because only women become pregnant. If the man finds out that she has a baby from a friend of a friend, then he can most certainly assert his parental rights. > [@](#): > > Then, she can give the child up for adoption, use the safe haven option, etc. Men have no such choices. Have you read this thread in its entirety? The idea that men can’t take advantage of safe havens or put children up for adoption are myths that are debunked each time this topic is discussed. > [@](#): > > It is giving a man a legal opt-out that a woman cannot contest, just as a woman has a legal opt-out that a man cannot contest. Men can’t contest a woman’s choice to have an abortion any more than a woman can contest his choice to get his appendix removed. A male opt-out bears little semblense to female abortion, and I really see no need in comparing the two. If anything, it should be called male “adopting out”. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/452 "2009-06-13T06:08:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Have you read this thread in its entirety? The idea that men can’t take advantage of safe havens or put children up for adoption are myths that are debunked each time this topic is discussed. You are not responding to what I wrote. You said men and women have exactly the same legal options. They don’t. If the man doesn’t know he’s the father of a child because the woman chooses not to tell him, she has an array of legal options for ending her parental responsibility. That was my point WRT adoptions and safe havens, so your reply above is not relevant to what I said. > [@](#): > > Men can’t contest a woman’s choice to have an abortion any more than a woman can contest his choice to get his appendix removed. A male opt-out bears little semblense to female abortion, and I really see no need in comparing the two. If anything, it should be called male “adopting out”. So you’re going to quibble about the OP’s terminology. Fine. It’s not my terminology, so I don’t care. My point is, women have a hell of a lot of options for dodging parental responsibility, none of which are open to men. The whole, “A man agrees to his parental responsibility when he comes” line ignores the fact that a woman does not agree to same when she has sex. The law could create an opt out for men, to go along with the many, legal and/or biological, that exist for women. That is the entirety of my point, which despite semantic wrangling, you have not disputed, so that ends this portion of the conversation, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/453 "2009-06-13T13:04:43Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The biology’s the same now? Or does that toggle to match your convenience? Now you’re being silly. I never claimed the biologies are the same. I’m saying the _laws_ as written are based on biological reality as they should be. We can change the law if we see an inequity but the change has to also be based on biological reality. Proposed laws have to consider the rights and welfare of everyone involved. I haven’t read any proposals that will be _more_ just based on reality. > [@](#): > > This same argument could have been, and probably was, given to support slavery. Maybe. So what? In issues of civil equality like slavery and voting rights for blacks or women the biology didn’t interfere with equality, attitudes did. The old laws were written based on ignorance and prejudice. The question was did or should the differences, {skin color or gender} actually mean for any sound reason that equality should be denied. The answer was ultimately no. In this case the biological reality forces the law to consider things like a fetus created by both parties but growing only in the woman’s body, and, the welfare and rights of a new but helpless citizen. It ain’t the same. > [@](#): > > Look. The law currently provides an unequal situation. This is based in part on the biology (though I strongly suspect it’s more based on the historical precedent that women didn’t hold jobs and thus _needed_ support), but the law need not be dictated by the biology (or historical precedent). The law can change. Yes the law can change. We actually arrived here from a place where men could and did walk away at will with no legal repercussions. It would be interesting to to some research on when and how the laws changed. I’m willing but won’t have the time for a while. I might guess that welfare had something to do with it. When the state began picking up the tab for father’s who just walked away the problem became more apparent. Perhaps there were some landmark cases of women suing for support before the laws were written. You’re right the laws can change. They already did. We already were a society where men could freely walk away from an an wanted child. They looked at the situation in more modern times and decided that allowed men an inequitable advantage over women and failed to protect and provide for new helpless citizens. _Maybe_ with abortion more available the law should be looked at again but I’ve never heard one proposal that really made sense. The equality exists when _both_ people risk pregnancy. They both are assuming the risk knowingly. Once conception takes place the law must consider other factors. > [@](#): > > It probably won’t - nobody likes deadbeat dads, those losers, let’s shoot 'em all and put their heads on pikes, castrate their corpses, seize their property and give it all to the baby - but that doesn’t mean the issue is handled in an inherently optimal manner at present. I know. It happens that way every time. The woman just sits on her ass living high on the hog from the hard labor of poor men who have been tricked into indentured servitude. It’s not as if the law makes both parents financially responsible for the care and welfare of thier offspring. Oh wait. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/454 "2009-06-13T13:31:56Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Kobal2](#): > > Good for you. (no sarcasm, no snark) Thanks > [@](#): > > Yes, I know. Which is precisely _why_ I want a more serious way out. I don’t see any way to change it other than the possibility of a pre sex contract. I’m not even sure that would hold up. I do think the idea would cut down on unwanted pregnancies. Girls could insist that ,the guy pays, is written in the contract. That might give them both pause. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t carry a contract around :D. Like I said, that’s just cold, even to jerkass me. As for women turned off by my honesty, sure, in different ways. Well, less often than by my _face_, but… 🙂 I understand. 20+ years ago when I was on the road with a band I was an irresponsible bastard when it came to women. I was pretty direct and upfront about what I wanted and didn’t want. I was always surprised at women who threw themselves at the band and then wondered why we weren’t having a meaningful relationship. Often I was honest without much sensitivity and surprisingly some thought I was an asshole. 🙂 Other’s really didn’t mind my being so blunt. > [@](#): > > As I said earlier, yeah, no matter what the outcome, there’ll always be a cost. Even for abortion. And I don’t mean only in a financial sense, either. But not all costs are equivalent for everyone. Agreed. I don’t appreciate how slow and unreasonable the courts can be when adjusting the child support amount when incomes change. Sadly we can’t realistically expect all the laws to be implemented fairly even if the letter of the law strives for fairness. ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/455 "2009-06-13T13:57:14Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Have you read this thread in its entirety? The idea that men can’t take advantage of safe havens or put children up for adoption are myths that are debunked each time this topic is discussed. “Debunked” is not the correct word to use. Each time “Safe Haven” laws have been presented as an option women have to remedy themselves of the burdens of parenthood, those “debunking”, respond with : > [@](#): > > The idea that men can’t take advantage of safe havens … Nobody said that men couldn’t take advantage of safe haven law. It has only been noted that safe haven laws are additional legal constructs that allow women to opt out of parenthood, and they can do it on a no-questions-asked basis, without the father’s consent. To make mention that men can also use Safe Haven laws is as disingenuous as Judge Lawson’s response to Matt Dubay’s mentioning the availability of Safe Haven laws to unmarried pregnant women. Judge Lawson wrote: > [@](#): > > “The plaintiff makes a similar argument with respect to the “Safe Haven” legislation that allows a parent to surrender a child who may be a newborn to an emergency service provider, thereby effectuating a placement for adoption, and grants both parents the right to petition for custody within twenty-eight days. Mich. Comp. Laws §712.3. This statute likewise is gender-neutral on its face.)” > Judge David M. Lawson That seems to be somewhat of a disingenuous statement for a judge to make. In Judge Lawson’s opinion, Matt Dubay does not have a case in citing the “Safe Haven” laws because the law is “gender neutral” as written. I wonder how Judge Lawson would react to a business owner who enacted a company policy of terminating the employment of any employee who made the choice to become pregnant? Afterall, the policy would be “gender neutral”. It would apply equally to both male and female employees who are pregnant. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/456 "2009-06-13T14:07:19Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > The thing is, it isn’t mammalian reproduction that allows women to opt out of motherhood. Biology, without legal or medical intervention, does not allow a woman to opt out of being a mother once she conceives. We have since developed ways of allowing this to happen, rights which we grant women to exercise but not men. Diogenes is saying that having sex with a woman, regardless of any efforts he may have made to prevent conception, confers de facto responsibility on a man for 18-21 years for the offspring that result. Women have ways of opting out of that responsibility, conferred on them by technology and the law. That is a double standard, and it could be remedied by the law. Those are just facts. If you think that the law should not offer such remedies, fine, but don’t claim it’s because of biology, because it’s not. So your first point, if I understand it correctly, is the control women have over the process is a result of technological progress, not nature? If so that may be true but so what? Doctors will mess with your body in all sorts of ways if you need or want them too (and have money of course), but “it’s not natural” isn’t a valid objection. Contraceptives aren’t natural either, nor is a majority of people living past 40, nor even is taking a car to work in a building instead of hunting for something to strangle with your barehands, and eat raw. If **Dio** is saying it’s all the guy’s fault then of course he’s wrong. It takes two to tango, but if he’s saying both are responsible and should own up to the kid then he’s right. The kid didn’t ask them to bump uglies but they did, and they share the consequences. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/457 "2009-06-13T14:15:09Z")
I’m pro choice. I’m for equal rights. No one person should be held responsible for the decisions of another person. If a boy can avoid responsibility for a child by having his sperm inserted by someone else and even get paid for it… Its time we stop favouring and coddling women. They have all the choices and means of recovery from poor decisions. Sorry to be so blunt, but it just reflects the attitude of **Dio** on the other side. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/458 "2009-06-13T14:22:27Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I’m pro choice. > > I’m for equal rights. > > No one person should be held responsible for the decisions of another person. > > If a boy can avoid responsibility for a child by having his sperm inserted by someone else and even get paid for it… > > Its time we stop favouring and coddling women. They have all the choices and means of recovery from poor decisions. Sorry to be so blunt, but it just reflects the attitude of **Dio** on the other side. It’s “favoring and coddling” women to expect guys to provide part of the support for their kids? Really? ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/459 "2009-06-13T14:55:31Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You are not responding to what I wrote. You said men and women have exactly the same legal options. They don’t. If the man doesn’t know he’s the father of a child because the woman chooses not to tell him, she has an array of legal options for ending her parental responsibility. But him not knowing he’s a father is an artifact of biology, not law. If a woman chooses not to disclose who the father is, what can the law do about it? She very well might not know. She may not want to risk naming the wrong guy. She may be afraid that the guy will retaliate against her or the baby somehow. In theory, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was the man who knew what the mother didn’t, the very same scenario applies. But just because this never happens because women, as a consequence of biology, know when they become mothers, doesn’t mean that the law is discriminatory after a child is born. > [@](#): > > That was my point WRT adoptions and safe havens, so your reply above is not relevant to what I said. It’s very much revelant. Ignoring the role that biology plays in the imbalance you decry is causing you to make weak arguments. If we give men a post-conception opt-out, every advantage you’re complaining that women have would still exist, and they would probably be exploited more than they are now. If women can glibly keep men in the dark about the babies they’ve sired, they most certainly can keep in them in the dark about pregnancies they are carrying. What can be done about that? Absolutely nothing. It’s impossible to create legal maneuvers that truly level the playing field in this area. That’s why fixating on what women can do that men can’t is a gigantic waste of time and energy. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/460 "2009-06-13T16:36:25Z")
> [@The Tao's Revenge](#): > > If Dio is saying it’s all the guy’s fault then of course he’s wrong. It takes two to tango, but if he’s saying both are responsible and should own up to the kid then he’s right. The kid didn’t ask them to bump uglies but they did, and they share the consequences. Women are not in the same position that men are after conception occurs. They have many options for getting out of that responsibility, during and after the pregnancy. If the woman wants to bear and raise the child, the man has absolutely zero options for getting out of it. That is the inequity that the law could remedy. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It’s very much revelant. Ignoring the role that biology plays in the imbalance you decry is causing you to make weak arguments. Whatever. You thinking my arguments are weak is of no moment to me. The point is that women do not consent to being parents because they get pregnant, but men de facto consent to it when they have an orgasm. Women have lots of options, some biological, some legal, to get out of it. Men have no such options. You think that’s fine. Others do not. The judgment and scorn heaped on men who’d like to opt out on being a parent after conception is not proportionally heaped on women who use their legally available remedies to get out of the situation. I’d like to see men receiving an equivalent legal remedy. You haven’t, with all your powerful and impressive “logic,” posted anything that compellingly convinces me, or anyone else who takes this stance, that it should not be so. > [@](#): > > t’s impossible to create legal maneuvers that truly level the playing field in this area. That’s why fixating on what women can do that men can’t is a gigantic waste of time and energy. Obviously you can’t “truly level the playing field.” All you can do is give men one legal way to opt out after conception, to complement the myriad options women have. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=24)