# 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:** 25
**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 16, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/481 "2009-06-16T00:10:58Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I explained all that in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11238226&postcount=424) post. Pretty flimsy reasoning for choosing a catastrophically nonfunctional option over a functional if sub-optimal one. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > My problem has everything to do with it being automatic. You’re proposing that we turn society’s rules upside down, and by doing so, you’re not only going to penalize women and children, but also men who want kids. Under your scenario every father would have to go through the extra effort of officially asserting parental rights instead having them assumed. And how do you reward them? By making them go through red tape and lawyers. Why should willing fathers go through this noise just so that some faceless dude can avoid paying child support? It’s of no benefit to them or any other person. No politician in his right mind would support this, either. Actually I see a great deal of sense in tying the full suite of paternal _rights_ to the suite of paternal responsibilities - meaning if you want some prayer of a chance of ever seeing that firstborn son of yours, fill out the form! Also, if you don’t like the ‘warriage’ option, you could also consider the ‘sweeping’ opt-in option: you’d send a signed card to the Department of Paternal Regristration on your 18th birthday (or any time after), and two weeks later in the mail you get a “Paternal Rights Opt-In card”, redeemable at any major vendor of babies. (Alternatively the card could be available from the DMV - they could print it on your drivers licence maybe - or any other option that you can think of to make it suitably easy.) This card could be flashed at any time to a woman to prove that you’re one of them _responsible_ types of men, who would never leave them in the lurch, so come on let’s get it on nudge nudge wink wink eh? There are a lot of reasons this would be superior to per-woman contractual opt-in - though the ‘warriage’ method would probably appeal to the conservative politician types who are skeeved out by out-of-medlock sex in general. Cocktail-napkin contracts aren’t going to appeal to _any_ politician - except the ones who like the status quo but for some reason don’t want to just outright say that men can just take their ‘equal protection’ and shove it. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > But keep on hatching elaborate schemes to get around having the Big Scary Talk. If the quality of argumentation used in this thread bears any similarity to what’s been exhibited in the courts, it’s no wonder why men have made zero gains in this area. So having couples get warried or having men stop by the DMV are “elaborate schemes”, but handing a drunk man a peice of paper and telling him to find a notary open at 11 on a saturday night _isn’t_? _Riiiiiight_. I have no objection to the Big Scary Talk, and in fact am strongly in favor of it, but I don’t think it’s so important as to keep a death-grip on an unviable solution just because it would, in theory, if it worked, which it wouldn’t, force the talk to happen. (In reality of course the talk, and contract, _wouldn’t_ happen in a lot of cases.) ---
**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 16, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/482 "2009-06-16T00:13:22Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > Re: Original Case. > > Father wants the kid put up for adoption? > > Make _both_ parents pay child support to the state for its foster care until such time as it is adopted. Give the biological parents first cut on adoption and/or being the foster parent, though they have to meet the same wickets as any other adoptive or foster parent. Naah, this pans out as stealing poor women’s babies from them. If the poor lady wants her baby to raise on her lonesome, let her have it - and if that puts her on welfare, oh well. ---
**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 16, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/483 "2009-06-16T00:15:57Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I wholly agree that post-coital opt-out would be shady if the woman didn’t have a clue it might happen - but that’s like saying that it would be shady to let people play the stock market if they didn’t know that occasionally people lost money at it. In other words, yes, that would be shady, but how frikking stupid would a woman have to be to think that Mr. One Night Stand _wouldn’t_ fill out his post-coital opt-out form and submit it the moment he heard that pregnancy was afoot? And what about women that are in relationships? You know, I don’t have a cite for this, but I have a feeling that most unwanted pregnancies are not the result of flings with strangers. Rumor has it that women have sex most frequently in the context of an ongoing relationship. Are you under some other kind of impression? Do you think it’s feasible for a boyfriend to give official notice to his girlfriend that he’s not willing to be a parent, and have her sign something releasing him of these responsibilities? It’s a conversation he should be having with her anyway, with or without contracts, so I don’t see why this represents undue hardship. If society put this option in place and it become a routine thing, I don’t think it would be a big deal. Either she’d agree to sign on it or not. Live and let live. ---
**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 16, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/484 "2009-06-16T00:22:42Z")
And I came across a [cite](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711905.pdf)that supports the assertion that holding men responsible for the kids they create has an effect on the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Just in case someone believes that male “abortion” will have the opposite effect. > [@Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health](#): > > RESULTS:Forty-six percent of pregnancies reported bynever-married men were unwanted, compared with 21% ofthose reported bymarried men. Stronger child support enforcement was marginally associated with men’sdecreasedlikelihood of being involved in an unwanted pregnancy compared with no pregnancy (coefficient, –0.14) and of beinginvolved in an unwanted pregnancy compared with a wanted pregnancy (–0.15). Without the improvement of childsupport enforcement over the survey period, the rate of unwanted pregnancies would havebeen an estimated 7%higher than the observed rate. > > CONCLUSIONS:Strengthening child support enforcement may havea positive impact on preventing unwanted preg-nancies. Programs designed to reduce unwanted pregnancies and nonmarital births should include information on child support enforcement to increase their success. ---
**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 16, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/485 "2009-06-16T00:31:12Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So having couples get warried or having men stop by the DMV are “elaborate schemes”, but handing a drunk man a peice of paper and telling him to find a notary open at 11 on a saturday night _isn’t_? _Riiiiiight_. Yeah, let’s make it easy for a drunk man to get some consequence-free ass at the expense of not one but _two_ presumably non-drunk people who want to do a good thing and take care of the kids they create together. This plan has gold written all over it! Keep up the good work! ::thumbs up:: Are you reading what you’re writing, dude? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2009, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/486 "2009-06-16T12:16:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Define “less fair [for] women and the resulting children”. It’s entirely fair to require the women to make the choice between aborting and raising the baby, and it’s not unfair to make her make this decision based on only the resources she can muster on her own, for the simple reason that it’s not unfair that one family may have to decide to abort on a combined income of $28000 a year while another single woman may have $100000/year. The simple fact is, each set of circumstances will have a different amount of money available, and if it’s not unfair to let a couple decide to raise a kid when poor, it’s not unfair to let a single parent decide to raise a kid when poor. > > Similarly, it’s not unfair to allow a child to be raised poor, if the mother decides to have the kid when poor. This is true whether or not the poorness comes from the father being non-contributory or because the poorness comes from everybody being poor - either way, the kids may be had, and if they got the short end of the stick, well, that was mom’s choice in not aborting, I guess. > > Basically, it’s hard to get _less_ fair when the situation is already _completely_ unfair. And to the degree that financial pressure compells women to abort, then the problem will self-correct; women who know they are on their own, and who feel that without child support their only way to get by is to abort, will abort. And in those case: problem solved. Allowing men to opt out when they discover the woman is pregnant effectively places the entire burden of birth control on women. I see that as fundamentally unfair. It effectively places the financial burden of child rearing on women and society as a whole while men can simply wave it away. Again fundamentally unfair. It’s not unfair for people to be poor. It’s unfair for the child to not have the financial advantages of one biological parent that are available. Finally in the area of personal responsibility, it’s ridiculously unfair to create a method for generations of men to wave off the consequences of their own choices and placing it all on women. I repeat. We already had this kind of society and have decided it’s not in the best interest of the people involved or society as a whole. ---
**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 16, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/487 "2009-06-16T18:13:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And what about women that are in relationships? You know, I don’t have a cite for this, but I have a feeling that most unwanted pregnancies are not the result of flings with strangers. Rumor has it that women have sex most frequently in the context of an ongoing relationship. Are you under some other kind of impression? > > Do you think it’s feasible for a boyfriend to give official notice to his girlfriend that he’s not willing to be a parent, and have her sign something releasing him of these responsibilities? It’s a conversation he should be having with her anyway, with or without contracts, so I don’t see why this represents undue hardship. If society put this option in place and it become a routine thing, I don’t think it would be a big deal. Either she’d agree to sign on it or not. Live and let live. The situation with a long-term relationship is clearly one where this conversation should be taking place, and one where there would indeed be time for the couple to get a notarized document stating that they are/aren’t going to hold the male responsible (in stark contrast to the ‘one night stand’/casual sex scenario). I do happen to disagree that the male should be obligated to get the female’s signature (since she doesn’t need _his_ signature to get an abortion - remember, the whole point of this discussion is to give the man a functionally equivalent option), but I agree that the woman should be informed and aware of the man’s decision on the matter. The thing is, though, in a long term relationship, where the woman is aware that the man may, or may not, have a Paternal Rights Opt-In card, is it an undue hardship for her to ask to see it? If she plans on carrying any kids she has to term she has a reasonable incentive to do so, and then if he doesn’t have one she has the option of breaking off the relationship or not. Live and let live. I agree this is a conversation that we should be encouraging couples to have. But is it really necessary for the man to instigate it? Isn’t it enough that somebody does? > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Yeah, let’s make it easy for a drunk man to get some consequence-free ass at the expense of not one but _two_ presumably non-drunk people who want to do a good thing and take care of the kids they create together. > > This plan has gold written all over it! Keep up the good work! ::thumbs up:: > Are you reading what you’re writing, dude? What “expense” are you talking about again? And let’s note that I’m opposed to having the woman sign anything, so not two but _one_ person will have to go through the arduous effort of checking a box on his driver’s lisence application, or however it’s set up. The only effort the woman will have to go through would be to card the man. And, to further correct the misrepresentation, I still support charging the man an ‘abortion fee’ for each pregnancy he instigates while not opting in. So it’s not “consequence-free ass”, it’s “as consequence-free of ass as that drunk women he’s getting it on with can get thanks to the magic of abortion.” So yeah, the _actual_ proposition might not be gold-plated, and it may not be optimal, but at least it _functions_ in the case of drunken one-night stands, and functions no _worse_ in the situations regarding long-term relationships. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Allowing men to opt out when they discover the woman is pregnant effectively places the entire burden of birth control on women. I see that as fundamentally unfair. It effectively places the financial burden of child rearing on women and society as a whole while men can simply wave it away. Again fundamentally unfair. Allowing women to opt out when they find their man can’t show an opt-in card effectively places the entire burden of birth control on men. And it’s not unfair to let a woman _choose_ to take the financial burden of rearing a child entirely on themselves. They _do_ have other options, remember? (As has been noted, you _have_ to remember that the abortion option exists for this discussion to even happen.) > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s not unfair for people to be poor. It’s unfair for the child to not have the financial advantages of one biological parent that are available. Finally in the area of personal responsibility, it’s ridiculously unfair to create a method for generations of men to wave off the consequences of their own choices and placing it all on women. I repeat. We already had this kind of society and have decided it’s not in the best interest of the people involved or society as a whole. It _is_ unfair to be raised poor, which drastically overshadows other financial unfairnesses. That you feel compelled to deny the first tells me that you too see how it defangs the second. The argument from responsibilty fails because the women already have a way to wave off the consequences of their own choices. So it’s not like we’re forcing them to bear children - they have the “abort out of jail” card. And given my druthers, the man’d be fined so as to make that card say “abort out of jail _free_”. So yeah, no unfairness there - or rather there is NOW, but wouldn’t be if men had a card too. And arguments from history topple on two counts: the circumstances may not be the same now as then, and we may have tolerated things in the past that we no longer wish to. Especailly due to the latter point you might as well not argue from there, because seriously the argument that equal rights needn’t even be considered because historically we didn’t care about them is never going to fly, _ever_. ---
**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 16, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/488 "2009-06-16T18:46:59Z")
**begbert2** you keep talking about his and hers “burden”. Tell me though, in this society you envision what would the burden be like for the “opt out” kids? You know the ones growing up in usually poor single parent homes? Finally is 50 cents for a condom really that much of a burden? ---
**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 16, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/489 "2009-06-16T19:06:45Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > **begbert2** you keep talking about his and hers “burden”. Tell me though, in this society you envision what would the burden be like for the “opt out” kids? You know the ones growing up in usually poor single parent homes? > > Finally is 50 cents for a condom really that much of a burden? The burden we’re talking about is child support, obviously. Child support or the burden of raising the child alone (or the burden of rasing the child alone without getting child support). Condoms have nothign to do with it - if they did, men are already given the maximum threat with no opt-out. If that’s no enough to inspire consistent condom use, and it isn’t, then nothing is. In the opt-in society I envision more abortions happening. When a woman truly feels they can’t afford a kid, they could abort it. I think that’s already happening to a degree, and so I think that a lot of the difference in costs caused by lack of child support would be counteracted completely by the lowest-income mothers aborting more due to the increased percieved economic pressure. So a lot of the difference would just not happen, particularly in the lowest economic classes. (Socilized health care regarding abortions would also help a lot here.) I would expect that women who were philosophically opposed to abortion would also refuse to have sex with men who failed to opt in, which would make their cases functionally equivalent to the present day. The men that didn’t opt in would likely find themselves matching up mostly with women who plan to abort should all else fail, and thus they also wouldn’t contribute much to the ‘burdened child’ problem. I also envision it being pretty standard for men to opt-in, card style. Which would bring us largely back to the current situation, except that men will have had their choice and thus can’t complain that women have the option of opting out via abortion and they didn’t. So yeah. I’m not seeing things boiling out to be all that much different in practice. A little, perhaps. Plus the men get their option to keep clear of such responsibilities, just like women can. ---
**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 16, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/490 "2009-06-16T19:22:14Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I do happen to disagree that the male should be obligated to get the female’s signature (since she doesn’t need _his_ signature to get an abortion - remember,\*\* the whole point of this discussion is to give the man a functionally equivalent option\*\*), but I agree that the woman should be informed and aware of the man’s decision on the matter. I think the part is bold is what keeps tripping you up. You can’t make these things equivalent, functionally or otherwise, without sacrificing common sense, legal soundness, and practicality. Women don’t have to give men notice for the same reason that a man can’t force them to get an abortion. Because female abortion is an activity that concerns her and her alone. Not the state, not a lawyer, not a man. No matter how you slice it, men aren’t going to be able to mimic this. You’re so stuck on making things equal between the sexes that you aren’t able to think outside the box and actually accept a plan that has a chance in hell of working. > [@](#): > > The thing is, though, in a long term relationship, where the woman is aware that the man may, or may not, have a Paternal Rights Opt-In card, is it an undue hardship for her to ask to see it? Your “opt-in card” is the epitome of overly elaborate schemes that will end up costing society a lot of more that it could possibly get in return. Let’s do the math: Costs: – millions (or more) dollars to manage “opt-in card” distribution/replacement, recordkeeping, and production. How many government employees will need to be hired to manage this system for 150 million people? – more unwanted pregnancies –\> more unwanted children on the dole or in the fostercare system –\> more taxpayer’s expenses – more AIDs cases and other diseases following as a result of decreased condom use –\> more taxpayer’s expenses and social instability, and healthcare costs –more female abortion –\> more people suffering surgery complications, more people paying for an expense procedure, more taxpayer money going to government-subsidized clinics – more fatherless children –\> viscious cycles of poverty and destructive behavior in both boys and girls who later grow up to be adults who have fatherless children –more stigmatized children who grow up feeling inferior to kids whose father “opt-in” Benefits: –men who don’t want to support the kids they help create can have sex with women without worrying about unwanted pregnancy. Now I don’t know about the next person, but to me if looks as if the costs of your scheme (won’t even call it a plan…that’s how crazy it is) vastly outweigh its benefits. Do you not think this matters? Because I assure you that it most certainly does. > [@](#): > > I agree this is a conversation that we should be encouraging couples to have. But is it really necessary for the man to instigate it? Isn’t it enough that somebody does? Are you really asking me this? If a man wants an “abortion”, why can’t he take steps to get one? Why is he expecting everyone else in society to go through procedural bullshit when _he’s_ the one complaining about the status quo? I mean, if you’re so hellbent on making things equal between women and men, ask yourself how stupid it would be for a woman to demand that someone else to instigate her own abortion. Seems as if you want to make things equal except when 1)thinking is involved, 2) certain things are inconvenient, 3) it actually means lifting a finger, or 4) when sex is at stake. But like I said, keep up the good work. ---
**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 16, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/491 "2009-06-16T21:13:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think the part is bold is what keeps tripping you up. You can’t make these things equivalent, functionally or otherwise, without sacrificing common sense, legal soundness, and practicality. Women don’t have to give men notice for the same reason that a man can’t force them to get an abortion. Because female abortion is an activity that concerns her and her alone. Not the state, not a lawyer, not a man. > > No matter how you slice it, men aren’t going to be able to mimic this. You’re so stuck on making things equal between the sexes that you aren’t able to think outside the box and actually accept a plan that has a chance in hell of working. Nonsense. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that “common sense, legal soundness, and practicality” are unachievable. (“Legal soundness” is in fact _obviously_ achievable; one merely needs to write the laws in a non-self-contradictory manner!) Your adherence to this absurd unsubstantiated assertion that it simply _can’t_ work is what is tripping _you_ up. Another absurd assertion is that women don’t have to give notice [of pregnancy? of abortions?] because “female abortion is an activity that concerns her and her alone. Not the state, not a lawyer, not a man.” What nonsense! Female abortion is only her business _because_ of the state and the lawyers. It _certainly_ hasn’t always been that way! I believe the above is the source of your problems - you have these notions in your head about what is “right”. That females have this inherent Vishnu-given right to control their own wombs. That it’s not enough for men to have considered the issue, that it’s not enough for men to _have_ the conversation, but that men have to be the one to _initate_ the conversation, for no discernable rational reason whatsoever. Who knows what other assumptions you have. Regardless, argument from them is ineffective. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Your “opt-in card” is the epitome of overly elaborate schemes that will end up costing society a lot of more that it could possibly get in return. Let’s do the math: > > Costs: > – millions (or more) dollars to manage “opt-in card” distribution/replacement, recordkeeping, and production. How many government employees will need to be hired to manage this system for 150 million people? > – more unwanted pregnancies –\> more unwanted children on the dole or in the fostercare system –\> more taxpayer’s expenses > – more AIDs cases and other diseases following as a result of decreased condom use –\> more taxpayer’s expenses and social instability, and healthcare costs > –more female abortion –\> more people suffering surgery complications, more people paying for an expense procedure, more taxpayer money going to government-subsidized clinics > – more fatherless children –\> viscious cycles of poverty and destructive behavior in both boys and girls who later grow up to be adults who have fatherless children > –more stigmatized children who grow up feeling inferior to kids whose father “opt-in” > > Benefits: > –men who don’t want to support the kids they help create can have sex with women without worrying about unwanted pregnancy. Now do it honestly - list all the costs of our _current_ system, that will be potentially mitigated and alleviated. Legal costs. Expenditures to pursue and seize money from deadbeats. Note that any disincentivizing for men to pack condoms is matched by increased incentive for women to pack them. Note that when you list costs like “more female abortion” you are _ignoring_ that those come with the _benefit_ of “fewer poor kids”. Note that “more abortions” and “more unwanted children” are pretty much directly contradictory. Note that the stigmatized children issue is either a joke or already happening - the kid will know that he’s got no dad around, which _already happens_, and could care not a fig about child support. Note also that when you have to pull this much crap out of the air, it’s a sure sign that your argument is flawed, if not your entire _position_. And, finally, note that your opt-_out_ scheme has most of the same problems…unless nobody opts out. Which kind of underscores the fact that pre-coital opt-out is a frigging joke used to try to trick people into maintaining the status quo. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Now I don’t know about the next person, but to me if looks as if the costs of your scheme (won’t even call it a plan…that’s how crazy it is) vastly outweigh its benefits. Do you not think this matters? Because I assure you that it most certainly does. It looks to me that you were so desperate to mischaracterize the cost-benefit analysis that it makes me believe that when it’s done _honestly_, all the complaints just vanish into the aether. Oh yeah, and: No, _your_ plan is crazy. Neener neener neener. (If we’re going to operate on that retarded level of “argument”.) > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Are you really asking me this? If a man wants an “abortion”, why can’t he take steps to get one? Why is he expecting everyone else in society to go through procedural bullshit when _he’s_ the one complaining about the status quo? Read with comprehension - this was about that _conversation_, between the man and woman about whether he wants babies, that you are so desperate to have the man initiate for some unknown and unfathomable reason. You know, the one where you’d have him whip out his opt-out form and try to get the woman to sign it. Of course with my plan it would simpler - she asks to see a card; he shows it or doesn’t - but either way it has zippo to do with “procedural bullshit”. Under the opt-in, nobody but the man has to go through procedural bullshit. (Just like nobody but the woman has to get an abortion.) The question comes down to, does he have to do something to opt _in_, or to opt _out_. I know that some people have this jolly idea to make the paperwork into punishment, out of some desperate urge to extralegally punish people they disapprove of, but in my analysis the opt-out scheme has flaws that make it inferior, vastly, to opt-in. Despite it lacking the all-important aspect of punishing the man-sluts with paperwork. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I mean, if you’re so hellbent on making things equal between women and men, ask yourself how stupid it would be for a woman to demand that someone else to instigate her own abortion. Seems as if you want to make things equal except when 1)thinking is involved, 2) certain things are inconvenient, 3) it actually means lifting a finger, or 4) when sex is at stake. > > But like I said, keep up the good work. READ WITH COMPREHENSION. All the woman has to do is say, “Say, I don’t sleep with irresponsible man-sluts. Let’s see your card.” This is precisely equivalent to the man saying, “Say, you’ll get an abortion if the condom, pill, and diaphragm all working together fail to prevent a pregnancy, right?” Except of course the card has a shred of legal weight behind it. 1. if the woman doesn’t think, she gets an abortion. If the man doesn’t think, he has to _pay_ for an abortion (with a little punitive extra for not having to go through surgery). That’s as equal as I can make it. 2. I want to make the man get a card once. You want to make a man get a separate legal contract with each woman he sleeps with. Yes, my way is more convenient. This is a problem how? Oh yes, it fails to make the contract itself an extralegal punishment applied to man-sluts. Silly me. 3. Again, I do seem to be failing to uslessly and unnecessarily impose work on anybody, other than a minimal effort on men who want to claim rights to their kids. Shame on me! 4. Here’s an interesting point. I freely admit that my strategy is not meant to be a backdoor method to impose puritanical morality by throwing up roadblocks before men seeking casual sex. Your method, of course, exists for _purely_ that purpose. Using an already proven _ineffective_ threat of childcare to scare them away from sex. Brilliant! ---
**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 16, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/492 "2009-06-16T23:20:49Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Your adherence to this absurd unsubstantiated assertion that it simply _can’t_ work is what is tripping _you_ up. It can’t work if only because no one will vote for it. Republicans who advocate increasing female abortion (as you’re hoping it will) would be submitting their own resignation letters by signing on this bill. Democrats advocating a policy that would put more people on welfare and possibly increase transmission of STDs would be tarred and feathered. Independents have a hard enough time getting a seat at the table; there’s no way they’d make _this_ their baby. Deadbeat dads are not sympathetic figures in society, particularly when their own advocates casually portray them as drunk, promiscuous, and pathetically passive (“Why can’t _she_ instigate the conversation, huh?”). I’m sorry that nothing I’ve written is persuasive to you. But this subject has been exhausted at this point. It was actually exhausted before this thread even started. You want to make this “opt in card” business happen? Go for it, man. It’s a phenomenonally dreadful concept, but since it’s a political impossibility, all this conversation amounts to is a whole bunch of nothing. Ten, 20, 50 years from now, men will still be gripping about this. So we might as well be talking about abortion rights for wookies right now. ---
**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 16, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/493 "2009-06-16T23:33:02Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It can’t work if only because no one will vote for it. Republicans who advocate increasing female abortion (as you’re hoping it will) would be submitting their own resignation letters by signing on this bill. Democrats advocating a policy that would put more people on welfare and possibly increase transmission of STDs would be tarred and feathered. Independents have a hard enough time getting a seat at the table; there’s no way they’d make _this_ their baby. Deadbeat dads are not sympathetic figures in society, particularly when their own advocates casually portray them as drunk, promiscuous, and pathetically passive (“Why can’t _she_ instigate the conversation, huh?”). > > I’m sorry that nothing I’ve written is persuasive to you. But this subject has been exhausted at this point. It was actually exhausted before this thread even started. You want to make this “opt in card” business happen? Go for it, man. It’s a phenomenonally dreadful concept, but since it’s a political impossibility, all this conversation amounts to is a whole bunch of nothing. Ten, 20, 50 years from now, men will still be gripping about this. So we might as well be talking about abortion rights for wookies right now. Taking a moment to note that pre-coital opt-out has _precisely_ the same poor chance in hell of passing as pre-coital opt-in… …That in mind, I accept your concession. As these things go, it was impressively graceful. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/494 "2009-06-17T12:12:01Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Allowing women to opt out when they find their man can’t show an opt-in card effectively places the entire burden of birth control on men. you’ll have to explain that one. I don’t see that’s the case. > [@](#): > > And it’s not unfair to let a woman _choose_ to take the financial burden of rearing a child entirely on themselves. No, not if that’s their free choice and the _only_ option. What’s unfair is both people having sex knowing the potential and men getting a pass on the consequences of their choice and shifting all the responsibility to women. > [@](#): > > They _do_ have other options, remember? (As has been noted, you _have_ to remember that the abortion option exists for this discussion to even happen.) It’s not unfair that biology and science dictates women have different choices than men. It is unfair to expect them to shoulder the major portion of responsibility because they have those additional choices. > [@](#): > > It _is_ unfair to be raised poor, which drastically overshadows other financial unfairnesses. That you feel compelled to deny the first tells me that you too see how it defangs the second. It should tell you I think you’re wrong. How exactly is it unfair to be raised poor? How does that jibe with this statement from you. > [@](#): > > Similarly, it’s not unfair to allow a child to be raised poor, if the mother decides to have the kid when poor. > [@](#): > > The argument from responsibilty fails because the women already have a way to wave off the consequences of their own choices. So it’s not like we’re forcing them to bear children - they have the “abort out of jail” card. You cannot realistically equate abortion , a surgical procedure that carries some risk, with what you’re proposing for men. > [@](#): > > And given my druthers, the man’d be fined so as to make that card say “abort out of jail _free_”. So yeah, no unfairness there - or rather there is NOW, but wouldn’t be if men had a card too. So at eighteen men decide if they’re willing to assume parental responsibilities or not in case of an unplanned pregnancy. I find that completely unrealistic and unworkable. What about prior to 18? I suppose if they change their mind they can apply to have their card changed but it’s a choice that often isn’t made realistically until an unplanned pregnancy occurs. It seems to me that you’re still doing what every other suggestion does. You shift the burden of responsibility away from men and call it equity. It ain’t. > [@](#): > > And arguments from history topple on two counts: the circumstances may not be the same now as then, and we may have tolerated things in the past that we no longer wish to. Especailly due to the latter point you might as well not argue from there, because seriously the argument that equal rights needn’t even be considered because historically we didn’t care about them is never going to fly, _ever_. I’d agree that the availability and advances in abortion procedures changes the historical argument somewhat but not completely. Women have more and safer options now than they used to. That doesn’t change the argument of personal responsibility which is part of the historical one. If the argument is that because of abortion women _should_ shoulder the greater portion of responsibility I reject it. Biology has decided they already do and abortion doesn’t change that. The laws are in place to try and make men shoulder their share of the responsibility. Nature being what it is males and females will continue to have sex and unplanned pregnancies will occur. What is best for society and ultimately everyone who lives within it, is that all members shoulder some responsibility for their choices. Any suggestion , no matter how cloaked, that men should be able to freely opt out of the responsibility for the children they sire damages them and society much more than it restores equity. The point is, take responsibility for the choices you get to make and the consequences of those choices. You’re trying to compensate for the fact that biologically women _must_ have different choices. You can’t do it successfully without shifting the burden and creating an greater inequity than the one you’re trying to fix. ---
**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 19, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/495 "2009-06-19T22:26:20Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > you’ll have to explain that one. I don’t see that’s the case. It’s exactly as sensible as your statement “Allowing men to opt out when they discover the woman is pregnant effectively places the entire burden of birth control on women.” Which is to say, in the limited sense that the men having an opt-out makes the women ‘entirely’ responsible for the pregnancy, the fact that the women may opt out before sex makes the man similarly ‘entirely’ responsible for the pregnancy. In otherwords, I called you on your hyperbole. And if we’re going to count opt-out points, under any plan where the man may opt out of responsibility for the pregnancy, they are either: 1. woman may opt out of sex altogether 2. woman may opt out after sex via abortion 3. man may opt out of sex altogether 4. man may opt out after sex via the legal opt-out or 1. woman may opt out of sex altogether 2. woman may opt out of sex after discovering the man has pre-opted out 3. woman may opt out after sex via abortion 4. man may opt out of sex altogether 5. man may opt out prior to sex via the legal opt-out I’m not really seeing how the man’s overwhelming number of opt-out is shoving anything down anyone’s throats - and in fact the woman **always** has an opt-out option because she cannot be prevented from aborting. Which means it is literally absurd to say that _anything_ the man does is forcing a burden on women. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > No, not if that’s their free choice and the _only_ option. What’s unfair is both people having sex knowing the potential and men getting a pass on the consequences of their choice and shifting all the responsibility to women. Which, as noted, cannot possibly happen. Abortion, remember? The women already have a way to drop the hot potato. The goal of this would be to give the man a similar option. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s not unfair that biology and science dictates women have different choices than men. It is unfair to expect them to shoulder the major portion of responsibility because they have those additional choices. Which responsibility, again? The decision of whether to get an abortion or not? She already _has_ 100% of that responsibility. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It should tell you I think you’re wrong. How exactly is it unfair to be raised poor? How does that jibe with this statement from you. It jibes in the sense that we have to decide whether it’s fair to be reaised poor or not. If it is, then the man bailing out is a water molecule in the ocean of existing unfairness - and you can work to solve _all_ such problems by improving child welfare in general. If not, then it is by definition not a fairness issue to the child whether the man pays child support or not. Me, I’m willing to go either way, and have argued it either way to try to keep up with you, but I’ve decided to quit doing that. You may not have one goalpost for poor families with deadbeat dads and one goalpost for poor families that are just poor - at least not with regard to how unfair it is for the kid to be raised poor. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > You cannot realistically equate abortion , a surgical procedure that carries some risk, with what you’re proposing for men. Sure I can - with a punitive increase in the bail-out fee to compensate. The legal system allows for monetary compensation for physical harm and the risk or physical harm all the time. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > So at eighteen men decide if they’re willing to assume parental responsibilities or not in case of an unplanned pregnancy. I find that completely unrealistic and unworkable. What about prior to 18? I suppose if they change their mind they can apply to have their card changed but it’s a choice that often isn’t made realistically until an unplanned pregnancy occurs. It seems to me that you’re still doing what every other suggestion does. You shift the burden of responsibility away from men and call it equity. It ain’t. Prior to 18 we have what is called statutory rape - other issues will be arising. But if you like we may presume that all such boys have opted in, or out, for conceptions made before their 18th birthday; I don’t care. This is an exceptional case regardless. And I think that in an opt-in system, that once you formally opt in you should _stay_ that way. No fair having sex on the condition that you’re opted in and then canceling your opt-in the next day. And it seems to me that this nonsense about “shifting the burden of responsibility onto the women” is an obvious load of crap - with the abortion of option, they simply cannot be forced to accept it. Again, you **have** to remember the abortion option to _have_ this discussion - without it you would be right that if we give men an opt out and don’t give women one, then it’s unfair\*. But abortion _is_ an option, and so you’re wrong. - and actually, if the man opts out and the woman is properly aware of this prior to sex, then it’s _still_ not unfair to her - not any more unfair than it is to let people go skydiving after signing an injury waiver. It’s not unfair to let people knowingly take stupid risks (though it could easily be argued as inadviseable to allow, which is why it’s a good thing that abortion remains an option to kill every shred of unfairness to women that you insist exists). > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’d agree that the availability and advances in abortion procedures changes the historical argument somewhat but not completely. Women have more and safer options now than they used to. That doesn’t change the argument of personal responsibility which is part of the historical one. Why _doesn’t_ this change the argument completely? Let’s take it to an absure extreme: If a women decides they’re pregnant, they can snap their fingers and the abortion will painlessly and instantly occur. No cost, no risk. Would _that_ change the equation? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > If the argument is that because of abortion women _should_ shoulder the greater portion of responsibility I reject it. Biology has decided they already do and abortion doesn’t change that. The laws are in place to try and make men shoulder their share of the responsibility. Nature being what it is males and females will continue to have sex and unplanned pregnancies will occur. What is best for society and ultimately everyone who lives within it, is that all members shoulder some responsibility for their choices. Any suggestion , no matter how cloaked, that men should be able to freely opt out of the responsibility for the children they sire damages them and society much more than it restores equity. The argument is that the women is not shouldering greater responsibility. And it’s nonsense to argue that biology defined the issue and that abortion, which _completely_ changes the biological equation, doesn’t effect that. Abortion changes the biology - before the woman was stuck with a pregnancy and a child, so to make it fair the man was stuck with the woman and child as well. Now the woman isn’t stuck with the pregnancy or a child, if she chooses not to be. Quite obviously to keep things fair the man should be similarly able to divest himself of responsibility. And while unlike the worthless fairness argument you _might_ be able to make some kind of case that society benefits from unfairly locking men in early - I don’t believe you’ve shown in any substantive manner that the current situation is necessarily better for society than it would be with male opt-out. Especially if you remember not to forget that abortion is an option. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The point is, take responsibility for the choices you get to make and the consequences of those choices. You’re trying to compensate for the fact that biologically women _must_ have different choices. You can’t do it successfully without shifting the burden and creating an greater inequity than the one you’re trying to fix. I reject the last assertion - which dismisses this paragraph, I think. There’s no moral imperative to give men _more_ repsonsibility than women must shoulder, after all - so when abortion gives women a new ‘out’, it’s quite reasonable to give men a new out too. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/496 "2009-06-20T13:40:11Z")
[ > [@begbert2](#): > > It’s exactly as sensible as your statement “Allowing men to opt out when they discover the woman is pregnant effectively places the entire burden of birth control on women.” Which is to say, in the limited sense that the men having an opt-out makes the women ‘entirely’ responsible for the pregnancy, the fact that the women may opt out before sex makes the man similarly ‘entirely’ responsible for the pregnancy. In otherwords, I called you on your hyperbole. Nonsense. There’s little hyperbole involved in my statement. As long as men can walk away from the woman they impregnated and the child that is born from that union with no consequences for them they have no compelling reason to be concerned about birth control other than their own moral compass. That was the problem before the laws changed. Giving men a fairly easy opt out now would be regressive for society rather than progressive. Since the woman actually physically gets pregnant there’s no way to “effectively place the entire burden of birth control on men” Even if men had to bear all the financial burden of child birth they could never bear the entire burden since they can never face the physical risk of pregnancy. Thus, your statement is nonsense. > [@](#): > > And if we’re going to count opt-out points, under any plan where the man may opt out of responsibility for the pregnancy, they are either: We’re not going to count until it seems relevant to my point. So far you haven’t shown that it is. \ > [@](#): > > Which, as noted, cannot possibly happen. Abortion, remember? The women already have a way to drop the hot potato. The goal of this would be to give the man a similar option. Obviously incorrect. Women have an option which is also an added responsibility that men can never have. Giving men an opt out of responsibility doesn’t makes things more equal when women start with an extra one. When women opt for abortion I’m going to guess that in many probably most cases the men are relieved. That option for women likely benefits almost as many men as women because it also allows more men to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well. Now, for the sake of the much smaller percentage of men who wind up paying child support for an unwanted child you want to shift more of the responsibility to women. Hardly equitable by any definition. > [@](#): > > Which responsibility, again? The decision of whether to get an abortion or not? She already _has_ 100% of that responsibility. The responsibility of preventing unwanted pregnancy as well as the responsibility of carrying to term and raising a child without the father’s financial support > [@](#): > > It jibes in the sense that we have to decide whether it’s fair to be reaised poor or not. If it is, then the man bailing out is a water molecule in the ocean of existing unfairness - and you can work to solve _all_ such problems by improving child welfare in general. If not, then it is by definition not a fairness issue to the child whether the man pays child support or not. Then decide what your position is rather than making contradictory statements. Your definition is incorrect. Being raised poor in and of itself is not unfair. What’s unfair is a child being deprived of financial support of the two people whose DNA it shares, when that can be provided. It’s also unfair to expect society as a whole to pick up this burden that belongs to the biological father. It’s just as unfair as if the parent were living in the same house and withholding food , clothes, medical, and spending their money on themselves, while allowing the someone else to pick up the slack for the child. The child is his, period. > [@](#): > > Me, I’m willing to go either way, and have argued it either way to try to keep up with you, but I’ve decided to quit doing that. You may not have one goalpost for poor families with deadbeat dads and one goalpost for poor families that are just poor - at least not with regard to how unfair it is for the kid to be raised poor. This kind of misdirection and misrepresentation will not help your argument. I do not have two different goalposts. Your argument that if it’s not unfair to be raised poor releases men from their parental responsibilities is a non sequitur. > [@](#): > > Sure I can - with a punitive increase in the bail-out fee to compensate. The legal system allows for monetary compensation for physical harm and the risk or physical harm all the time. This is where your argument really falls apart. By recognizing this, that people can and are held financially responsible for physical harm, you also highlight the responsibility of the biological parent to the child. The father is directly responsible for the child. The women’s choices and options between conception and birth do nothing to change this basic fact. If a man can be held responsible for part of the abortion he can also be held responsible for the child carried to term. > [@](#): > > Prior to 18 we have what is called statutory rape - other issues will be arising. Please stop throwing in this nonsense to try and purposely cloud the issue. It only demonstrates the weakness of your argument rather than confuse me. > [@](#): > > But if you like we may presume that all such boys have opted in, or out, for conceptions made before their 18th birthday; I don’t care. This is an exceptional case regardless. What? How many teenage pregnancies occur in which both parents are minors? A significant amount. Regardless, we can ignore this aspect if you like recognizing that your proposal fails to deal with it. > [@](#): > > And I think that in an opt-in system, that once you formally opt in you should _stay_ that way. No fair having sex on the condition that you’re opted in and then canceling your opt-in the next day. Again showing how ridiculous the proposal is. It’s unrealistic to think a man might not change his mind as years go by. It’s equally unrealistic to propose he shouldn’t have that option. > [@](#): > > And it seems to me that this nonsense about “shifting the burden of responsibility onto the women” is an obvious load of crap - with the abortion of option, they simply cannot be forced to accept it. I don’t care how it _seems_ to you. Assertion is not a convincing argument nor, in this case, the result of sound reasoning. > [@](#): > > Again, you **have** to remember the abortion option to _have_ this discussion - without it you would be right that if we give men an opt out and don’t give women one, then it’s unfair\*. But abortion _is_ an option, and so you’re wrong. Abortion is a choice and an \*added \*responsibility that biology gives only to women. It’s reasonable to assume that choice benefits more men than it harms, since far fewer men are held responsible for unwanted pregnancies. That doesn’t change the ultimate responsibility issue for men. You’re also ignoring the needs of the child which weighs heavily in the responsibility argument. Not gonna fly. Allowing men an easy opt out still places the burden of birth control and the financial burden of child care on either the woman or society as a whole. There’s no way to twist that into something that’s “fair” > [@](#): > > - and actually, if the man opts out and the woman is properly aware of this prior to sex, then it’s _still_ not unfair to her - not any more unfair than it is to let people go skydiving after signing an injury waiver. It’s not unfair to let people knowingly take stupid risks (though it could easily be argued as inadviseable to allow, which is why it’s a good thing that abortion remains an option to kill every shred of unfairness to women that you insist exists). Yet if two adults engage in risky behavior that results in a clear need for a third person , both are held responsible. Both parents assume the risk when they have sex and know the potential. It’s unreasonable for the man to expect the woman to make choices about her body based on what is expedient for him. Even if they talked about it before. It’s also unreasonable to allow him to avoid the financial responsibility of risky behavior simply because he doesn’t have the same biological choices as a women does. Again, you’re ignoring the third person in this equation because you realize your argument fails when you don’t. Doing so only emphasizes that failing. > [@](#): > > Why _doesn’t_ this change the argument completely? > > Let’s take it to an absure extreme: If a women decides they’re pregnant, they can snap their fingers and the abortion will painlessly and instantly occur. No cost, no risk. Would _that_ change the equation? It changes the available options for both men and women. It does not change the question of ultimate responsibility for the needs of the child. That’s all I have time for this morning. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/497 "2009-06-21T04:24:28Z")
This is where I left off this morning. > [@begbert2](#): > > The argument is that the women is not shouldering greater responsibility. I know. It’s not true. The woman automatically has extra responsibility because she has the choice to terminate or carry to term. It’s her body at risk with both choices and nobody else’s. If she chooses to terminate she not only chooses to avoid the responsibility of a child for herself she chooses to for the man as well. Even though men aren’t making the choice they are also benefiting from safer and more available options for termination. You’re arguing that even with that added benefit men deserve even more. They deserve to be allowed to abandon the children they sire because it’s only “fair” since they aren’t the ones who make the ultimate choice to carry to term or terminate. Just ponder what kind of men society be encouraging if we allow that. Again, it affectively places the sole responsibility for birth control on women since men have no lawful and enforced consequences to be concerned about. There’s no way to call that fair. It implies; Since women can choose to terminate they should be forced to accept sole responsibility if they choose to have the child. That’s an honest if misguided attitude. The woman should not be penalized because biology dictates she must be responsible for the choice to carry or terminate. More importantly, a child should not be deprived of support from one of it’s biological parents simply because Mom decided not to terminate and Dad didn’t like that choice. > [@](#): > > And it’s nonsense to argue that biology defined the issue and that abortion, which _completely_ changes the biological equation, doesn’t effect that. Abortion changes the biology - How can you realistically argue this? It’s rubbish. Abortion changes the available options for men and women but does not change the biology. Women are the _only_ ones who conceive and the only ones who bear the responsibility of choosing between two physical consequences. I don’t see that changing any time soon. . The availability of safer and legal abortion has clearly and logically benefited men as well. You can’t really argue that’s only an opt out for women. I can realistically point out that the choice of abortion or not is an added responsibility for women. > [@](#): > > before the woman was stuck with a pregnancy and a child, so to make it fair the man was stuck with the woman and child as well. Overstate much? > [@](#): > > Now the woman isn’t stuck with the pregnancy or a child, if she chooses not to be. Quite obviously to keep things fair the man should be similarly able to divest himself of responsibility. It isn’t obvious at all. That’s the argument you’re trying to make and failing at. Here once again you’re ignoring the third person in this equation. The child. I understand that you have to to try and make your case but ultimately it only reveals your failure. > [@](#): > > And while unlike the worthless fairness argument you _might_ be able to make some kind of case that society benefits from unfairly locking men in early - I don’t believe you’ve shown in any substantive manner that the current situation is necessarily better for society than it would be with male opt-out. Especially if you remember not to forget that abortion is an option. It should be obvious to anyone with the ability to reason and a basic grasp of human nature that giving men the go ahead and legal sanction to be unconcerned about birth control and to abandon their financial responsibility for the children they sire will result in more irresponsible men who have irresponsible sex. It will also mean society as a whole will be forced to support these children that the fathers have abandoned more than they already do. The current situation is that by holding men responsible for the consequences actions we encourage them to be a responsible citizen. We provide financial support for their children by legally requiring them to pay their share and in doing so we force men to at least consider that possibility when they choose to have sex. I’d say that at least has some potential in having men think about birth control when they consider who they have sex with. Your suggestion allows them to have as much unprotected sex as they can manage with no concern at all about impregnating women or the children they sire. It takes very little imagination to see which is best for society as a whole. > [@](#): > > I reject the last assertion - which dismisses this paragraph, I think. There’s no moral imperative to give men _more_ repsonsibility than women must shoulder, after all - so when abortion gives women a new ‘out’, it’s quite reasonable to give men a new out too. except nobody is giving men _more_ responsibility so this argument doesn’t even apply. ---
**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 22, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/498 "2009-06-22T21:07:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Nonsense. There’s little hyperbole involved in my statement. As long as men can walk away from the woman they impregnated and the child that is born from that union with no consequences for them they have no compelling reason to be concerned about birth control other than their own moral compass. That was the problem before the laws changed. Giving men a fairly easy opt out now would be regressive for society rather than progressive. Since the woman actually physically gets pregnant there’s no way to “effectively place the entire burden of birth control on men” Even if men had to bear all the financial burden of child birth they could never bear the entire burden since they can never face the physical risk of pregnancy. Thus, your statement is nonsense. I maintain that it’s less nonsensical as yours, at least in part because you’re apparently conflating the “burden of birth control”,“burden of pregnancy”, and “burden of child care” with pretty inconsistent and reckless abandon. In reality, of course, abortion is not birth control; birth control is birth control. And the man and woman _mutually_ decide how stupidly to risk pregnancy, because either can require the other to take proper measures\*. And, notably, the woman can pretty much _always_ tell if the man has a condom on - making it _completely_ absurd to imply that the man’s lack of interest in birth control has the slightest shred of relevence at all. If the woman wants a condom, she gets a comdom, regardless of what the man cares about, so the “burden of birth control” is a pretty stupid place to argue from unless you’re arguing that women can’t say no. So perhaps it’s not hyperbile. Perhaps it’s just a completely irrelevent distration instead. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > We’re not going to count until it seems relevant to my point. So far you haven’t shown that it is. It’s **the entire basis for this discussion**. If it’s not relvent to your point, then what the hell do you think your point is? Let’s review, in simple terms. Women have been given the right to surgically opt-out of pregnancy and, as a result, from obligations to a child. They have been given the right to make this decision based on factors that have zippo to do with the biology - they are allowed to abort strictly because they don’t want a kid, independent of minding the pregnancy itself. With the _addition_ of this right, women have been given a legal option that men have no equivalent of, to escape responsibility for fetuses they conceive. Equal protection, if one gives a crap about such things, would seem to imply that men are required under law to be given similar legal options to women. That’s the discussion. the number, type, and timing of opt-out points _are_ this discussion. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Obviously incorrect. Women have an option which is also an added responsibility that men can never have. Giving men an opt out of responsibility doesn’t makes things more equal when women start with an extra one. When women opt for abortion I’m going to guess that in many probably most cases the men are relieved. That option for women likely benefits almost as many men as women because it also allows more men to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well. Now, for the sake of the much smaller percentage of men who wind up paying child support for an unwanted child you want to shift more of the responsibility to women. Hardly equitable by any definition. Speaking of “obviously incorrect”, women didn’t start with the right to get an abortion, and let’s not pretend otherwise. Regardless of how useful it might be to pretend that we’re not explicitly talking about a legal option that is being given to only one gender. I don’t know where you get that a “much smaller percentage” of women elect not to get abortions than do. But regardless, yes, presuming that the man wanted to opt out if he could, he’s going to be relived if women decide to opt-out, because that effectively opts them out as well. The question of _equitability_ comes from the fact that the man cannot decide to opt out on his own initiative. And let’s note that allowing opt-out for men would not “shift more of the responsibility to women”. It would _allow_ them to _choose_ to raise a child on their own. Until you _remove_ their right to get an abortion, you cannot “shift” any responsibility to them but the decision to _get_ the abortion, which is already 100% theirs. Do _try_ to remember that the woman already has the ability to drop the hot potato, completely and entirely. Handing more of it to her is not forcing her to keep it in any way. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The responsibility of preventing unwanted pregnancy as well as the responsibility of carrying to term and raising a child without the father’s financial support Wth the former you might have a point with, if it wasn’t the case that the woman already has full responsibility to make the man wear a condom if she wants to avoid getting pregnant and catching STDs and the like, just like the man does. Having a second person being careful or not doesn’t add or remove to _your_ reponsibility to be careful, as you should know, being the one arguing all the time for personal responsibility (in men only, it seems sometimes). With the latter you might have a point if she couldn’t just get an abortion and absolve herself of _all_ responsility of “carrying to term and raising a child without the father’s financial support”. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Then decide what your position is rather than making contradictory statements. I did, and stated it, in the following paragraph. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Your definition is incorrect. Being raised poor in and of itself is not unfair. What’s unfair is a child being deprived of financial support of the two people whose DNA it shares, when that can be provided. It’s also unfair to expect society as a whole to pick up this burden that belongs to the biological father. > It’s just as unfair as if the parent were living in the same house and withholding food , clothes, medical, and spending their money on themselves, while allowing the someone else to pick up the slack for the child. The child is his, period. > This kind of misdirection and misrepresentation will not help your argument. I do not have two different goalposts. Your argument that if it’s not unfair to be raised poor releases men from their parental responsibilities is a non sequitur. You can assert that being raised poor isn’t unfair to the child all day, but that doesn’t make it true. Which throw acid on your point here. And it’s not a non-sequiter to point out that you are, indeed, using one arbitrarily asserted “fairness” to try and make one particular special separate way of being a little less financially affluent seem “more unfair”. Let’s separate out the arguments to clear up the “unfairness” here; there are three parties here to assess unfairness for. If you _don’t_ conflate them gratuitously with one another: 1. Fairness to the child. _This_ is where you are drawing your moral support for unfairness - but to the child, there is literally no difference from being poor because your mom doesn’t have a good job, or being poor because your mom doesn’t have a good job and also isn’t getting child support. It’s _exactly the same_ - and exactly as unfair. Because by this point it’s just the conditions the child is being raised on, not where the money comes from, that matters. 2. Fairness to the mother. This is where you are drawing the ability to distinguish between support money from the father, and money earned from a job or other sources. But the problem with applying fairness here is that the mother has the ability to avoid the issue entirely, through the choice of aborting. So it is simply impossible to unfairly force her to raise a child on her own. At worst you can let her _choose_ to raise a child on limited means, but that’s a _choice_. It’s not unfair to a person to _allow_ them to choose a difficult life path with full information. 3. Fairness to the man. You don’t give two shits about this. Equal protection under the law? Pfft! The woman gets a legal out, but not him! > [@cosmosdan](#): > > This is where your argument really falls apart. By recognizing this, that people can and are held financially responsible for physical harm, you also highlight the responsibility of the biological parent to the child. The father is directly responsible for the child. The women’s choices and options between conception and birth do nothing to change this basic fact. > > If a man can be held responsible for part of the abortion he can also be held responsible for the child carried to term. I like how your last sentence of your first paragraphe here overtly assumes your conclusion- it’s clever _and_ subtle! Of course the woman’s options have something to do with it - they’re the entire point. Absent legal abortion, the woman was “directly responsible for the child” too. Now, she has an out. Equal protectionally speaking, he should get one too. The the woman can be given a legal way _not_ to be be held responsible for part of the abortion, then the man can be given a legal out too. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Please stop throwing in this nonsense to try and purposely cloud the issue. It only demonstrates the weakness of your argument rather than confuse me. Sooo, statutary rape is legal, then? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > What? How many teenage pregnancies occur in which both parents are minors? A significant amount. Regardless, we can ignore this aspect if you like recognizing that your proposal fails to deal with it. Amusing how you say I “fail to deal with it”, when in the test you are _responding to_ I provide two ways of dealing with it. Auto-opt-in on children conceived while a minor, or auto-opt-out on children conceived while a minor. (The argument for the first is that minors don’t get rights anyway, so screw his right to opt out; the argument for the second is that he’s not old enough to contract obligations by his actions.) I’ll also offer a third way - we could let the boy start officially opting in/opting out younger than 18. This gets a little dodgy in that you invite (nay, mandate) parental interference in the decision, but them parents have (in most places as far as I know) a say about abortions for minor females, so the dodginess is spread equally, I suppose. I would note that if we went for permanent opt-in/opt-out, they should certainly be allowed to ‘reset’ it when they achieve their majority. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Again showing how ridiculous the proposal is. It’s unrealistic to think a man might not change his mind as years go by. It’s equally unrealistic to propose he shouldn’t have that option. We are now talking about an implementation detail. The main concern I had here was preventing a man from _posing_ as ‘opted in’ when they weren’t, which clearly is an issue of concern for those willing to seriously and honestly consider the plusses and minuses of any given implementation system. Clearly, if a man can get a card saying he’s opted in, and then cancel his opted-in status, he should have to give back the card. The problem being that this would be easy to get around by ‘losing’ the card, getting a replacement, and turning that in. Clearly if the woman made an official check of the man’s card with the central database upon seeing it, as is done with driver’s licences, this wouldn’t be a problem - but that ain’t gonna happen, obviously. An alternate approach would be for the card to _expire_. Perhaps after five years, three years, one year, six days - whichever; that’s an implementation detail. The man would have to re-opt-in as regularly as the card expired if he wanted to maintain paternity rights over any children he sired, or he just could let the card expire if he changed his mind about opting in. (Presumably the expiry date on the card should be printed pretty large.) A third option is of course to go for the ‘warriage contract’ opt in; to gain paternity rights over _any_ child, the man would have to warry that specific woman. (Presumably anytime before the actual birth would be sufficient). This obviously would tie a heck of a lot more life changes to the situation than merely taking on child support responsibilities and visitation rights, but it might have some appeal to the traditionalist types. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t care how it _seems_ to you. Assertion is not a convincing argument nor, in this case, the result of sound reasoning. Oh god, the irony! Not only have I _previously_ argued, soundly, _why_ the ‘shifting the burden of responsibility onto the women’ argument is crap, but _your_ arguments are _rife_ with bald assertion! > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Abortion is a choice and an \*added \*responsibility that biology gives only to women. It’s reasonable to assume that choice benefits more men than it harms, since far fewer men are held responsible for unwanted pregnancies. > That doesn’t change the ultimate responsibility issue for men. You’re also ignoring the needs of the child which weighs heavily in the responsibility argument. Not gonna fly. Allowing men an easy opt out still places the burden of birth control and the financial burden of child care on either the woman or society as a whole. There’s no way to twist that into something that’s “fair” Tou have to twist pretty hard to claim the woman doesn’t _already_ have the responsibility to demand a condom, or to claim that the woman would be forced to take any financial burden she didn’t want at _all_. (Both as previously noted.) And you’re right that women are **legally** given the opt-out of abortion. And you’re right that that doesn’t, _at the moment_, automatically grant men a similar legal opt-out option. Which is kinda the entire basis for this discussion. As for your repeated assertion that having had sex makes one ultimately legally responsible for a child, period (unless you’re a woman) - I’ve heard recently that assertion is not a convincing argument, especially not when it fails to be the result of sound reasoning, as in this case. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yet if two adults engage in risky behavior that results in a clear need for a third person , both are held responsible. Both parents assume the risk when they have sex and know the potential. It’s unreasonable for the man to expect the woman to make choices about her body based on what is expedient for him. Even if they talked about it before. It’s also unreasonable to allow him to avoid the financial responsibility of risky behavior simply because he doesn’t have the same biological choices as a women does. Again, you’re ignoring the third person in this equation because you realize your argument fails when you don’t. Doing so only emphasizes that failing. Firstly, women are _not_ necessarily held responsible for the act of conceiving - the woman may ‘opt out’. Again, you’re ignoring this fundamental fact which is the _basis_ for this discussion because you realize your argument fails when you don’t. And as I previously noted, to the ‘third person’, it’s precisely as unfair to be raised by a poor mother as to be raised by one who is equally poor due to not having child support. Arguing so desperately for this small bandaid while simutaneously explicitly ignoring the massive gaping wound that the bandaid barely begins to cover suggests that the problem of children begin raised poor has only a negligible influence on your arugment here. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It changes the available options for both men and women. It does not change the question of ultimate responsibility for the needs of the child. Mm-hmm. So, the women hovers her finger over a switch marked “make a baby/opt out completely”. I’m offering to give the man a switch marked “take reponsibility for any baby the woman elects to let be made/opt out completely”. You, on the other hand, want to lock that switch in the first position. Apparently the biological issue of who actually has to carry the baby to term and the costs and difficulies of getting an abortion are irrelevent to you, so we can ignore them henceforth. So, there are four states, based on the switches (and assuming that the man sets his switch first and the woman knows what he set it to): 1. Woman makes a baby with the knowledge that the man will support it, and is okay with that. 2. No baby is made. 3. Woman makes a baby with the knowledge that the man will not support it, and is okay with that. 4. No baby is made. Neither of us really minds that option 4 would go away if you didn’t let the man flip his switch, given that it’s pretty much functionally equivalent to option 2. But what is your objection to option 3? It can’t possibly be that the child will be raised by a somewhat less wealthy mother, since that sort of unfairness doesn’t bother you in any other context. (Snipped for length - continued in next post.) ---
**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 22, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/499 "2009-06-22T21:15:53Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I know. It’s not true. The woman automatically has extra responsibility because she has the choice to terminate or carry to term. It’s her body at risk with both choices and nobody else’s. If she chooses to terminate she not only chooses to avoid the responsibility of a child for herself she chooses to for the man as well. Even though men aren’t making the choice they are also benefiting from safer and more available options for termination. You’re arguing that even with that added benefit men deserve even more. They deserve to be allowed to abandon the children they sire because it’s only “fair” since they aren’t the ones who make the ultimate choice to carry to term or terminate. Conflating the definitions of “responsibility”, are we? “Responsible” as in “has the responsiblity to make the decision”, and “responsible” as in “is required to deal with the results”. The woman is responsible in the first way, no argument there. But _because_ she is responsible in the first way, she is not saddled with an inescapable responsibility the second way. Again, there’s no doubt that if the man and woman are in _agreement_ that the pregnancy should be terminated, they will all be happy about the results. If the man wants a baby and the woman doesn’t, then screw his wishes due to the biology - I’m fine with that, while noting that it _is_ unfair to the man - because allowing him to prevent the abortion would turn the woman into a mere breeding machine. But, in a _fair_ world, where the woman wanted the baby and the man didn’t, then screw her wish to turn the man into a mere walking wallet. Turnabout _is_ fair play, after all. If she can’t support the kid without the continual money feed she can always abort anyway. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Just ponder what kind of men society be encouraging if we allow that. Again, it affectively places the sole responsibility for birth control on women since men have no lawful and enforced consequences to be concerned about. There’s no way to call that fair. > It implies; > Since women can choose to terminate they should be forced to accept sole responsibility if they choose to have the child. That’s an honest if misguided attitude. The woman should not be penalized because biology dictates she must be responsible for the choice to carry or terminate. More importantly, a child should not be deprived of support from one of it’s biological parents simply because Mom decided not to terminate and Dad didn’t like that choice. Women who wish not to get pregnant should insist on condoms - which are the _extent_ of the reasonable exectation for birth control that a woman can reasonably expect from a man. So the _current_ state is that the birth control is her responsibility. Arguing that another set of rules with the same rules in this particular respect is somehow _more_ unfair than the current situation is laughable. And you’ve already made it clear that level of financial support a random given child has is supremely _un_important, since it ain’t unfair to be raised poor. So all that remains is the statement that the notion that a woman should be allowed to choose to bring a child to term and support them on their own finances if they wish is “an honest if misguided attitude”. I’m glad that you recognized that it’s honestly held, at least. Though I still maintain that it’s not correct to view the woman’s option of raising a kid without child support as being a punishment - after all, it’s not inflicted on her! She can always avoid it via aborting, and need only shoulder the burden if she willingly chooses to go that route of her own free will. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > How can you realistically argue this? It’s rubbish. Abortion changes the available options for men and women but does not change the biology. Women are the _only_ ones who conceive and the only ones who bear the responsibility of choosing between two physical consequences. I don’t see that changing any time soon. How can you realistically _contest_ that an abortion changes the biological situation? Without abortion, conception means fetus means baby, with reasonable reliability. With it, conception means fetus means nothing. The difference in biology is incontrovertible and is the _cause_ of the new and different choice for women - and _doesn’t_ offer a new and different choice to men (unless you count “browbeat and abuse the woman until she agrees to abort”, anyway), under current law anyway. And nobody’s saying that women shouldn’t be the ones to “bear the responsibility” for choosing whether or not to abort - are you trying to strawman here? We’re just saying that when she makes this choice, in the interest of granting men a legal choice vaguely comparable to the legal option of abortion granted women, woman should have a slightly different set of consequences attached to bringing the pregnancy to term. The choice would remain hers either way. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The availability of safer and legal abortion has clearly and logically benefited men as well. You can’t really argue that’s only an opt out for women. I can realistically point out that the choice of abortion or not is an added responsibility for women. By conflating (or bait-and-switching) which definition of “responsibility” you’re using. Which stretches the definition of “realistically”. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Overstate much? Not really. Should I have instead emphasized that back in the good old days, women were considered property and shotgun weddings happened because after being ‘sullied’ they’d become useless merchandise for other men? Or that slightly less long ago women were presumed unable to take care of themselves, hence childcare is provided to support the child since mommy can’t possibly on her own? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It isn’t obvious at all. That’s the argument you’re trying to make and failing at. Here once again you’re ignoring the third person in this equation. The child. I understand that you have to to try and make your case but ultimately it only reveals your failure. Funny, I thought you didn’t think it was unfair to a child to be raised in lesser financial circumstances. Me, I’m just agreeing with you. A woman, \*however \*poor, _however_ divested of the chance to put her hand in a man’s wallet when she elects to defy his will and eschew an abortion, should be allowed to keep and raise her child. In granting her that right regardless of her financial circumstances, I necessarily have to turn a blind eye to the fact that some of the mothers will be pretty poor. Perhaps _really_ poor. Arguing otherwise _requires_ a person to support forcibly taking children away from poor mothers, or _forced_ abortion for poor women. I don’t support that position, and neither do you. So neither of us need to (or may) make our case on the argument that a child should be prevented from being raised by a poor mother. And it also makes the child’s welfare a virtual irrelevency in the equation - it has _already_ been trumped by maternal rights. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It should be obvious to anyone with the ability to reason and a basic grasp of human nature that giving men the go ahead and legal sanction to be unconcerned about birth control and to abandon their financial responsibility for the children they sire will result in more irresponsible men who have irresponsible sex. It will also mean society as a whole will be forced to support these children that the fathers have abandoned more than they already do. Actually the people with the ability to reason and grasp basic human nature will note that, similarly, telling women that any babies produced are _their_ problem will incite them to carry their own condoms and, most likely, get more abortions. And it doesn’t matter _who_ brings the condom; it has the same effect either way. And it means that the women as individuals will have to support these children. Society need not get involved at all - particularly if it is of the opinion that it’s not unfair to be raised poor! > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The current situation is that by holding men responsible for the consequences actions we encourage them to be a responsible citizen. We provide financial support for their children by legally requiring them to pay their share and in doing so we force men to at least consider that possibility when they choose to have sex. I’d say that at least has some potential in having men think about birth control when they consider who they have sex with. Your suggestion allows them to have as much unprotected sex as they can manage with no concern at all about > impregnating women or the children they sire. It takes very little imagination to see which is best for society as a whole. You know, you have a point. The threat of having to support a child is completely effective at persuading men to use proper birth control. In fact, all unmarried men, and half the married ones too, practice complete abstinence in order to protect themselves from this dread threat! Oh, wait. No. I guess you’re wrong; men still go around screwing women irresponsibly _despite_ this dread threat. In fact it’s a pretty crappy and ineffective deterrent, isn’t it? Whoops, your point just evaporated - even _before_ I pointed out that taking incentive from men hands it to women; it doesn’t make it vanish entirely. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > except nobody is giving men _more_ responsibility so this argument doesn’t even apply. Let’s be quite clear - you and I both know that in the section quoted I was talking about the financial responsibility for the child. 'Cause you’d have to either be pretty damned inattentive or outright stupid not to realize that under _both_ our plans, under _all_ plans presented in this discussion, the woman retains 100% of the “responsibility” for deciding if the abortion will happen - and I know you’re neither that inattentive or that stupid. So, all disingenous argument aside, it’s flatly obvious that under the current system, men may have long-term financial responsibility forced on them by the women, and the women not only don’t have that, they don’t have long-term financial responsibility forced on them by the biology. They may pay a _short_-term expense (which I’m perfectly willing to charge the men for), and avoid long-term financial responsibility _entirely_. And yes, most of the the men would presumably cheer if the women spared them as a side-effect of sparing themselves. Which is irrelevent to the fact that men are not currently granted the ability to make an equivalent, or even _vaguely_ equivalent choice themselves. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/500 "2009-06-23T13:29:08Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I maintain that it’s less nonsensical as yours, at least in part because you’re apparently conflating the “burden of birth control”,“burden of pregnancy”, and “burden of child care” with pretty inconsistent and reckless abandon. In reality, of course, abortion is not birth control; birth control is birth control. I’m not conflating those inappropriately. They are all aspects of the womans responsibility that will be affected by your suggestion. I did not suggest abortion was birth control. You are coming close to that by referring to it rather casually as an opt out for women. > [@](#): > > And the man and woman _mutually_ decide how stupidly to risk pregnancy, because either can require the other to take proper measures\*. And, notably, the woman can pretty much _always_ tell if the man has a condom on - making it _completely_ absurd to imply that the man’s lack of interest in birth control has the slightest shred of relevence at all. If the woman wants a condom, she gets a comdom, regardless of what the man cares about, so the “burden of birth control” is a pretty stupid place to argue from unless you’re arguing that women can’t say no. If you read and understand what you yourself just wrote you’ll see you are supporting my argument rather than your own. If a woman has to insist that a man wear a condom then she is assuming the responsibility of birth control. Under current laws men have a serious reason to be concerned about proper precautions about birth control. With an opt out they have no compelling reason to be concerned. They may cooperate in order to get laid but that’s not them being concerned about or assuming the responsibility. With the opt out no man has to be concerned about a woman forgetting her pill or having something to compliment the unreliability of condoms. Since we’re talking about fairness and equity it is entirely relevant, your denial notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > So perhaps it’s not hyperbile. Perhaps it’s just a completely irrelevent distration instead. I’ve demonstrated it is not. > [@](#): > > It’s **the entire basis for this discussion**. If it’s not relvent to your point, then what the hell do you think your point is? It’s not reduced to who has the most numeric amount of opt outs. That’s a ridiculous oversimplification. Even at that you’re counting is wrong. I’ve pointed out that the abortion opt out should also be included in the man’s column as well since the increased safety and availability benefits them. > [@](#): > > Let’s review, in simple terms. Women have been given the right to surgically opt-out of pregnancy and, as a result, from obligations to a child. They have been given the right to make this decision based on factors that have zippo to do with the biology - they are allowed to abort strictly because they don’t want a kid, independent of minding the pregnancy itself. Incorrect. They have been given this right **because of the biology**. They make the choice because they are the only ones who can conceive and carry to term or not **within their body**. > [@](#): > > With the _addition_ of this right, women have been given a legal option that men have no equivalent of, to escape responsibility for fetuses they conceive. Equal protection, if one gives a crap about such things, would seem to imply that men are required under law to be given similar legal options to women. Equal protection has to be within the boundaries of of biological reality and deal the realistic consequences of such options. Since men cannot conceive they cannot be given a similar legal option. As I’ve pointed out, because of biology women already have an additional responsibility. Consider that with the fact that abortion also benefits men so can’t realistically be counted as an opt out only for women. That means giving men an additional opt out does not result in equity and your counting points are unrealistic and to simplistic. > [@](#): > > That’s the discussion. the number, type, and timing of opt-out points _are_ this discussion. Only if you need to oversimplify in order to seem correct. > [@](#): > > Speaking of “obviously incorrect”, women didn’t start with the right to get an abortion, and let’s not pretend otherwise. Regardless of how useful it might be to pretend that we’re not explicitly talking about a legal option that is being given to only one gender. Please stop wasting time and making longer posts with this stuff. I’m not pretending anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > I don’t know where you get that a “much smaller percentage” of women elect not to get abortions than do. I don’t have the stats. Starting from unplanned , unwanted pregnancies rather than all unplanned ones, we eliminate men who freely choose to pay child support, all abortions that relieve both parents of the financial burden, and wind up with women who decide to keep their children and pursue the father in court. That’s a smaller percentage than the entire group. > [@](#): > > But regardless, yes, presuming that the man wanted to opt out if he could, he’s going to be relived if women decide to opt-out, because that effectively opts them out as well. The question of _equitability_ comes from the fact that the man cannot decide to opt out on his own initiative. Which is a realistic legal consequence of biological reality. If we consider that an inequity we should honestly admit that it is defrayed in terms of equity by legal abortion benefiting men as well. > [@](#): > > And let’s note that allowing opt-out for men would not “shift more of the responsibility to women”. It would _allow_ them to _choose_ to raise a child on their own. Women can already do that by choosing not to pursue the father in court. Your proposal removes an option for them and the child resulting in additional responsibility for the woman and society as a whole for a child they did not create alone. To make your point you’d have to explain why the woman who chooses to have the child should be totally financially responsible and why society should carry the burden for reluctant fathers. > [@](#): > > Until you _remove_ their right to get an abortion, you cannot “shift” any responsibility to them but the decision to _get_ the abortion, which is already 100% theirs. Wrong. The decision not to get an abortion does not change the father’s direct responsibility for the child. Giving them an opt out does and does shift the responsibility to women and society. Remember it’s rights based on biological reality. 1. The decision to have sex and risk pregnancy is equal. 2.If pregnancy occurs the woman’s right to make choices about her own body outweighs the rights of the man. He may express his feelings and influence but the ultimate choice to terminate or not cannot be his. This is not legal inequity but equity based on biological reality. 3.Once a child is born the rights of the child , because of it’s inability to care for itself, must be considered. You’re suggesting that because of the biological reality of 2 that number 1 and 3 be drastically changed in an attempt to make 2 more equitable. Men no longer face an equal risk in 1 because they are provided with an opt out and no longer have a compelling reason to take equal precautions, and the child in 3 cannot expect financial support from at least one of it’s parents because of the same. In your attempt to make one portion more equitable you make the other 2 less resulting in decreased equity. > [@](#): > > Do _try_ to remember that the woman already has the ability to drop the hot potato, completely and entirely. Handing more of it to her is not forcing her to keep it in any way. > Wth the former you might have a point with, if it wasn’t the case that the woman already has full responsibility to make the man wear a condom if she wants to avoid getting pregnant and catching STDs and the like, just like the man does. Having a second person being careful or not doesn’t add or remove to _your_ reponsibility to be careful, as you should know, being the one arguing all the time for personal responsibility (in men only, it seems sometimes). :rolleyes: right. Currently we hold both parents responsible. I’m not the one suggesting men have an opt out of responsibility. You’re suggesting since a woman has the abortion choice she be entirely responsible for the resulting child if she chooses to give birth. Why don’t you want equal responsibility for men, who, knowing the risk, have sex and father children. You’re suggesting we give them a way to avoid responsibility since biology gives women more responsibility. Then you try to paint that as fair. Twist away. It won’t work. I’m working extra hours these next few days. Be back when I can. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=26)