# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/81 "2009-06-09T18:00:47Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > False. You don’t need to stick it in. That’s 100% effective. You can use various contraceptives such as spermicide, condoms, and the like to vastly improve your odds if you do. As the website I linked to said it, the Supreme Court clearly rejected the argument that a human being, at least a female human being, must accept the consequences of sexual congress or simply skip sex. I (being the woman that I am) have the same choice to not let him “stick it”, but the Supreme Court, bless 'em, decreed that I can let him stick it if I want to and dispose of any child that results, one way or another. Denying him that same right makes no sense. > [@](#): > > To try to dodge out of the responsibility for the life one co-creates makes one a dishonorable dishonorable selfish stupid asshole. I didn’t use any birth control at all for the first 2 years I was sexually active, and it finally caught up with me (isnt’ it amazing how kids think they are invulnerable?). I went to the doctor and he efficiently vacuumed the fetus from my womb. Am I a dishonorable selfish stupid asshole? I hope so…because I really value consistency. That’s my beef about this situation to begin with. > [@](#): > > Abortion is about woman’s control over their own bodies, and was initially allowed for privacy, not contraceptive rights. You seem to think that this situation should be equalized somehow. Well I’ve got news for you buddy. You should have been born a bloody seahorse. Humans are placental mammals. The female’s body pays a much greater role in reproduction. So of course she’s going to have more control of the whole process. Pardon me? Do you really not understand or believe that a woman’s right to abortion is a right to her reproductive choices? > [@](#): > > I say again you’re happy a kid is going to grow up in a foster home, without even one loving parent. Such an idea is scornful beyond belief and can only be properly critiqued in the pit, someone who’d rejoyce in it isn’t worth the effort. It’s a bit of a leap, since I stated a couple of times I think that a change in the laws would result in fewer children without proper parental support, not more. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/82 "2009-06-09T18:03:50Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > No, I see them as largely unneccesary and a holdover construct from the Days of Yore when it took two people to run a home. Then you see them incorrectly. It’s not about what’s theoretically possible for one parent to do, it’s about what’s best for the child, and it’s about equal responsibility. I guess you must live a very sheltered life if you think that most single moms can get by on their own, and the suggestion that if even if they can scrape along by the barest margin, that should exempt the fathers from all responsibility is antisocial, misogynistic, and shows a depraved indifference to the welfare of children. I don’t know where your side gets the idea that an imagined right for man to be financially free of responsibility for the consequences of his own sexual choices somehow trumps the well-being of children. ---
**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 9, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/83 "2009-06-09T18:05:00Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > There are men, today, who don’t lie, who tell their partners they don’t want to be parents right from the start, but they have no legal protection for that choice. So what? It’s not like they are completely at the whim of the Fates here. If they want zero risk of parenthood, then hopefully they are taking actions to acheive that goal that _don’t_ involve coercing another person to undergo a medical procedure that is both invasive and elective\*, and all for a mistake that _he_ had equal hand in creating. In any unwanted pregnancy, _both_ parties made errors that resulted in sperm-egg union. Yet, allowing men to waive accountability implies that only one of them was responsible for this error. This sounds fair to you? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/84 "2009-06-09T18:09:19Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Before there is a baby, both parties are equal. Man decides whether to provide genetic material. Woman decides whether to provide genetic material and provide incubation for fetus. Each party therefore determines whether it will play the biological role in the potential creation of a baby. > > After there is a baby, both parties are equal. Both can drop the newborn off. Both must consent to put the child up for adoption. If one chooses adoption, and the other wants custody, the non-custodial parent has a financial responsibility to that child up to age 18. > > It always amazes me that people see inequality here. If this is the law throughout the land (and I did not know one way or another) then it is slightly less imbalanced…except that I think it sucks for both men and women. If I, as a woman, were to become pregnant, and because I have whatever issues I have with abortion, carry the child to term, I think I should be allowed to give it up forever if I choose, the father should not have the right to force me to participate in the child’s life. If HE wants the kid, great, he can have it and have full responsibility for it. Giving either parent the right to force the other parent into playing any role at all that they do not wish to play blows. Finally… we ladies still do have the advantage, practically, if not legally: we can skip telling him altogether and give the kid up without his ever knowing. And, if I were in a position to become pregnant, that’s EXACTLY what I would do if I did. I would never risk being forced into responsiblity for the child, so I would never tell the father (assuming I wouldn’t abort.) And that kinda screws guys again, the ones who might otherwise choose to keep the child. It’s a screwed system. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/85 "2009-06-09T18:09:43Z")
> [@villa](#): > > You are completely ignoring the rights of the child here. It isn’t the child’s fault that the mother lies. The child has a right to support from both parents. The father has the right to recover that expenditure were it the result of fraud. > > Actually, I have a pretty good grasp of the realities of our legal systems. Ask my boss. And it sucks if the mother does not have the money. But if she doesn’t, all you are doing is transfering the cost onto the child, the completely 100% innocent party in the entire equation. By having the father responsible to the child to pay support (as is the law under our system) and the mother responsible to the father for the consequences of fraudulent action (as is the law under our system) you ensure that the party that had NO say in the conception and birth, the child, is most adequately protected. Wrong. I am transferring the costs of raising the child direclty onto the mother - the person (under these scenarios, _i.e._, fraud/deception) with the last best opportunity to prevent the child from coming to be. I do not think a duped father has any cause of action against the mother for fraud under existing law (as you seem to suggest), but I would love to be proven wrong. If it’s all about the kid, then how about this: If dad can prove that mom lied about birth control or refused to terminate an unplanned pregnancy despite an ealrier agreement to do so but mom still seeks to have dad held financially accountable for the child’s upbringing, then the dad will have the right to assume primary custody and receive support payments from the mom. This is fine with me, and it’ll never, ever happen - so turn him loose, set him free. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/86 "2009-06-09T18:11:07Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > So what? It’s not like they are completely at the whim of the Fates here. If they want zero risk of parenthood, then hopefully they are taking actions to acheive that goal that _don’t_ involve coercing another person to undergo a medical procedure that is both invasive and elective\*, and all for a mistake that _he_ had equal hand in creating. > > In any unwanted pregnancy, _both_ parties made errors that resulted in sperm-egg union. Yet, allowing men to waive accountability implies that only one of them was responsible for this error. This sounds fair to you? if it was deceit and not an “error” then yes, it sounds fair to me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/87 "2009-06-09T18:11:38Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > I’d say it happens often enough not to be ignored. But that’s not the point. I merely offered it in response what I perceived to be a righteous cluck, sclolding us for forgetting the real reason for child support. > > Perhaps you already have, but if not, review your state’s child support and custody laws, maybe talk to a practitioner about the realities of getting a modification in the event of job loss and the penalties for failing to pay even when it is impossible to do so. These issues are thorny enough when there a two loving parents who hate each other. Is it so wrong to seek a remedy for the duped man who finds himself a reluctant father? These are laws that need to be tweaked, and made more flexible and made more amenable to changing circumstances and abilities, I agree, but those are different issues than whether the guy should be able to walk awy scot-free of any responsibility at all just be yelling, “not it.” The woman has no such ability, regardless of some of the ignorant assertions which have been made in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/88 "2009-06-09T18:13:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No one’s talking about coercing any parenthood, we’re talking about child support. Show me how a child would be better off without child support. When the child is: a. never conceived through devious means (you really think this is all that rare, Dio? Dude, I hope you have extra-strength condoms and you never let a woman anywhere near them…) b. Given up and placed with an adoptive family that genuinely wants the child. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/89 "2009-06-09T18:17:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Men’s responsibility doesn’t accrue until the child is born. They can’t preemptively abscond on their responsibility before it even descends on them. There is effectively no difference between saying you want them to be able to run during pregnancy or run after birth. Both decisions amount to running after birth. Nope. Check my links..the guy is being hounded and the child isn’t born yet. And the idea is to give the man the option early on. If it were a law that women had to inform the father immediately upon learning of their pregnancy, and obtain some kind of notarized document from him declaring his intention to participate or not, or otherwise sacrifice any right to hold him responsible, I guarantee you’d see fewer children born to single mothers. And if a man were to declare his intention to participate and then fail to, that’s the same as it is today: once you say yes to being the parent, different rules apply. No one is suggesting that men be given the option to bail at any point they feel like it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/90 "2009-06-09T18:19:43Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > As the website I linked to said it, the Supreme Court clearly rejected the argument that a human being, at least a female human being, must accept the consequences of sexual congress or simply skip sex. I (being the woman that I am) have the same choice to not let him “stick it”, but the Supreme Court, bless 'em, decreed that I can let him stick it if I want to and dispose of any child that results, one way or another. Denying him that same right makes no sense. The Supreme Court declared no such thing, and after the child is born (it’s irrelevant what happens during pregnancy), the sperm donor has exactly the same rights as the mother. > [@](#): > > I didn’t use any birth control at all for the first 2 years I was sexually active, and it finally caught up with me (isnt’ it amazing how kids think they are invulnerable?). I went to the doctor and he efficiently vacuumed the fetus from my womb. Am I a dishonorable selfish stupid asshole? I hope so…because I really value consistency. That’s my beef about this situation to begin with. There is no inconsistentcy. You took responsibility for the pregnancy. It did not result in a baby, so the comparison to deadbeat fathers is not applicable. It’s a false equivalency. Any comparison of a pregnancy to a live baby is bullshit. > [@](#): > > Pardon me? Do you really not understand or believe that a woman’s right to abortion is a right to her reproductive choices? That’s not what the Supreme Court said. Perhaps you should actually try READING _Roe_. > [@](#): > > It’s a bit of a leap, since I stated a couple of times I think that a change in the laws would result in fewer children without proper parental support, not more. And that supposition is not only empirically baseless, but frankly laughable. ---
**Author:** ![xcalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/5daacb/32.png) [@xcalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/91 "2009-06-09T18:20:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Getting an abortion is TAKING responsibility, not running from it, and she can’t arrange an adoption without the father’s permission. After a live birth, the rights and responsibilities are the same. There in no inequity, and no decent argument whatsoever for forcing all financial responsibility for children solely onto women. It’s ludicrous on its face, and it’s hostile to both women and children. Do you have a cite, or data or any support for this or any other assertion you have made in this thread? Do you know for a fact that a woman has to notify the father? Do you know that there are enforced laws on the book that prevent a mother from just showing up to an adoption facility and just saying she doesn’t know who the father is? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/92 "2009-06-09T18:21:41Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I don’t think he should be able to force the child to be put up for adoption, I think he should be able to simply “opt out” at an early stage, the same way a woman can. I think there should be a system in place where a woman must infomr a man if she’s pregnant, to give him the choice that early, and he signs a document that says he’s in or he’s out. And it has to be on her to inform him and give him the opportunity to legally give up his parental rights and responsiblities. If she fails to do so in a timely way, too bad for her. A simpler and better system would be to restrict all legal claims on a man’s parental responsibility to marriage. If a woman isn’t married to the man who fathered her child, she and her offspring would have no claim on him whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/93 "2009-06-09T18:25:26Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > if it was deceit and not an “error” then yes, it sounds fair to me. How do you prove deceit? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/94 "2009-06-09T18:26:23Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > In any unwanted pregnancy, _both_ parties made errors that resulted in sperm-egg union. Yet, allowing men to waive accountability implies that only one of them was responsible for this error. This sounds fair to you? In an unwanted pregnancy, both parties made errors, and the man’s fate is entirely in the hands of the woman who has an absolute and inalienable right to choose what will happen next. This sounds fair to you? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/95 "2009-06-09T18:34:54Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > When the child is: > > a. never conceived through devious means What the fuck difference does it make to the child how it was conceived? How does that ameliorate any of its needs, and how is that an argument that it’s better off not getting child suppport (not that I buy your vision of millions devious women poking holes in condoms as anything but a paranoid phantasm). > [@](#): > > (you really think this is all that rare, Dio? Dude, I hope you have extra-strength condoms and you never let a woman anywhere near them…) I did when I was single. > [@](#): > > b. Given up and placed with an adoptive family that genuinely wants the child. This is non-responsive to the real question. This hypothesizes a child who WOULD be receiving financial support, and telling a woman she should have to be forced to choose between scraping by as a single mom with no help from the father (who’s only excuse not to share responsibility is that he doesn’t _want_ to) or giving the child away is mean-spirited, heartless to both mother and child, pointless vindictive and decidely misogynistic. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/96 "2009-06-09T18:35:31Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Wrong. I am transferring the costs of raising the child direclty onto the mother - the person (under these scenarios, _i.e._, fraud/deception) with the last best opportunity to prevent the child from coming to be. > > I do not think a duped father has any cause of action against the mother for fraud under existing law (as you seem to suggest), but I would love to be proven wrong. > > If it’s all about the kid, then how about this: If dad can prove that mom lied about birth control or refused to terminate an unplanned pregnancy despite an ealrier agreement to do so but mom still seeks to have dad held financially accountable for the child’s upbringing, then the dad will have the right to assume primary custody and receive support payments from the mom. This is fine with me, and it’ll never, ever happen - so turn him loose, set him free. A prior agreement to terminate is never going to be enforced, so forget that, it is about financial responsibility. At the moment, it is probably true you would get nowhere with a fraud action - the burden of proof is going ot be way too high. I’d be interested to see what would happen if a wealthy woman entered into a contractual arrangement with a man that she would reimburse him for any child support payments that might be assessed agaisnt him were she to get pregnant and have the child. I think such an agreement would probably be upheld, but it does not negate his financial responsibilities to the child. And there is no reason that a “duped father” should be automatically entitled to primary custody. Custody should be decided on a best interest of the child standard. That it isn’t always now isn’t really relevant. Your argument once again shows you don’t consider the child to have rights or interests. ---
**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 9, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/97 "2009-06-09T18:36:51Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > We’ve decided that the laws of civilization trump the laws of nature in her case, but not his. Only because she is the one that is pregnant, not him. Any other arrangement ignores this really basic, really fundamental, _wholly biological_ reality. Look, you might be able to argue that abortion is getting around the laws of nature (not convincingly, though, since naturally-occuring abortions occur everyday), but it certainly isn’t a “law of civilization”. It was happening well before Roe vs Wade, and probably well in advance of anyone’s definition of civilization. Legalized abortion only keeps people from being prosecuted for doing what has gone on since the beginning of time. And it has nothing to do with men. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/98 "2009-06-09T18:38:13Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > In an unwanted pregnancy, both parties made errors, and the man’s fate is entirely in the hands of the woman who has an absolute and inalienable right to choose what will happen next. This sounds fair to you? Yep. He took an assumed risk. He chose his own fate. I’m more concerned about the fate of the child anyway. I really don’t have any sympathy for a whiny little weasel who doesn’t want to be responsible for his own mistakes. We are all responsible for our own mistakes in life. That’s how it works. The contention that men are entitled to risk free sex is childish, sexist nonsense. ---
**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 9, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/99 "2009-06-09T18:42:15Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > In an unwanted pregnancy, both parties made errors, and the man’s fate is entirely in the hands of the woman who has an absolute and inalienable right to choose what will happen next. This sounds fair to you? The only reason why women have one extra choice that men don’t have is because their bodies get involved in the pregnancy process. Does _this_ sound fair to me? No, it doesn’t. I’d much rather have babies grow out of cabbages and delivered by kindly storks, thus allowing women to hold on to their girlish figures forever. But alas, this is not the way things are. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/100 "2009-06-09T18:46:28Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I’d be interested to see what would happen if a wealthy woman entered into a contractual arrangement with a man that she would reimburse him for any child support payments that might be assessed agaisnt him were she to get pregnant and have the child. I think such an agreement would probably be upheld, but it does not negate his financial responsibilities to the child.. What in God’s name are talking about? An agreement to reimburse the father for child support payments? There WILL NOT BE ANY child support payments if the primary custodial parent (generally the mother) does not seek child support. Child support isn’t just randomly assesed by “them.” Who did you think did this, the Census Bureau? “I must reiumburse you for the money I make you pay me.” That’s not child support, it’s a coerced loan. Sheesh! > [@villa](#): > > And there is no reason that a “duped father” should be automatically entitled to primary custody. Custody should be decided on a best interest of the child standard. That it isn’t always now isn’t really relevant. Your argument once again shows you don’t consider the child to have rights or interests. You might reread the post to see the actual point I was making. It was subtle. I’ll break it down for you: woman lies to man to make baby or woman tells man she won’t make baby and makes baby anyway, man no have to pay for baby, now woman’s responsibility because woman lied to make baby or had baby even though she tell man she no have baby. Baby still cared for just now by woman since but for woman’s decision, no baby. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=6)