# 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:** 8
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/141 "2009-06-09T23:17:37Z")
[quote=“begbert2, post:137, topic:499186”] [Really?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_haven_law) Men have the same safe haven rights as women. > [@](#): > > Regardless, abortion is functionally equivalent No it isn’t. Abortion doesn’t involve a child. Child support is an entitlement that belongs to the child, not the mother. Before there is a child, no parental responsibilities have attached to either partner. Once there is a chid, both partners have equal rights and responsibilities. Unless the woman was raped, both partners also have abolulte and total ability to avoid becoming parents. If they decide to assume a risk, then they have decided to assume a risk. Men do not have a right to risk free sex. They just don’t. ---
**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 9, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/142 "2009-06-09T23:22:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s an incredibly onerous choice for a woman who wants her baby, but doesn’t have the faculties to handle it on her own. Forcing a woman to give up her own baby in order to spare the father the minor invenience of having to take responsibility for his sexual choices is not in the best interest of the child, the mother or the state. It would show incredibly fucked up priorities, be a burden taxpayers, and taruamatize children and mothers. Can you explain why the state would have any compelling interest whatever in sanctioning sucha a policy? Wait a minute. It’s “incredibly onerous” for the woman to have to pay the ‘father share’ of the baby costs, but only a “minor inconvenience” for him to do it? Say what? And the state has an interest in _equal rights_ where possible. If the state wanted to say “you had sex, you raise the result” to everyone, that’s fair and equal and that’s fine. If the state wants to say “the woman may opt out. The man - no way” that’s a tad less fair and equal, what? Also I should note that states with Safe Haven Laws apparently see a certain merit to letting people absolve themselves of parenting responsibility. Perhaps you should ask them about the compelling interest? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > First of all, the state is me, and I don’t want to pay for your babies. Second of all, the woman can’t put up a child for adoption without consent of the father, and secondly, the father is allowed to drop off babies at safe habvens too. There is no difference in parental rights after the child is born. Mm-hmm. What about before the child is born? If the man loses is say in what happens due to the act of having sex, but the women gets a second chance to ‘rectify’ the situation, explain how that’s fair or equal? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Children are not aborted, pregnancies are, and men have the same safe haven sanctions that men do, as well as a right to stop adoptions. To the first bit: irrelevent terminology detail. To the second: some of us prefer a solution that has equal rights more than _some_ of the time. If the man cannot choose to abort the child against his partner’s will(as the woman can), then he should be given an option that is as close to functionally equivalent with that as possible. ---
**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 9, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/143 "2009-06-09T23:27:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Men have the same safe haven rights as women. Assuming they’re present, right? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No it isn’t. Abortion doesn’t involve a child. Child support is an entitlement that belongs to the child, not the mother. Before there is a child, no parental responsibilities have attached to either partner. Once there is a chid, both partners have equal rights and responsibilities. Unless the woman was raped, both partners also have abolulte and total ability to avoid becoming parents. If they decide to assume a risk, then they have decided to assume a risk. Men do not have a right to risk free sex. They just don’t. And women do? Tell you what; I’m totally cool with only letting the man write off his resonsibilities within three months of being made aware that the pregnancy/child occured. That should end all objections, 'cause there’d be no “child” at that point either. (Assuming the woman didn’t conceal the issue, anyway.) Look, I get that you’re opposed to letting people burden the state with their children. But we _do_. And this line that the man was screwed as soon as he screwed but the woman gets a special limited time exception is a load of crap. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/144 "2009-06-09T23:28:34Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Okay, but legally, a woman can’t just give her children away. Didn’t I just post evidence that she can? She is not required to inform the father of the pregnancy . Supposedly, the act of intercourse is considered enough notice that a child may have resulted, and it’s the burden of the man to find out if the child was a result. Unless he actively registers as the parent of the father (and that’s only true in 33 states) she may give the child up for adoption without his consent. The supreme court on 3 occasions has ruled that he has a constitutional right to oppose an adoption if he has established a relationship with the child, however, his ignorance of the child’s existence is not just cause for failing to support and establish a relationship with the child. True, later on, if he learns of the child’s existence he can petition (depending on the state of course) to give exception based on the mother’s attempt to deny him the knowledge but then he must still then go through an active proceeding to prove his fitness as a father. The mother can up and move, and then file for an interstate adoption, and then there is no federal mechanism to inform the father at all. In Doe Vs Queen in S. Carolina ([http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles/COA/3221.htm](http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles/COA/3221.htm)), the birth mother moved to another state, told the father that she had had an abortion, then she filed for a restraining order when he tried to find her, and the court still ruled against him because he failed to file for parentage in a timely manner. He didn’t even know he had a child until the adopted parents lawyer informed him. ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/145 "2009-06-09T23:39:41Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Wait a minute. It’s “incredibly onerous” for the woman to have to pay the ‘father share’ of the baby costs, but only a “minor inconvenience” for him to do it? Say what? It’s onerous for her to have to pay BOTH shares, which is what you’re demnanding, not just the father’s share. It’s even more onerous to tell her that if she can’t pay BOTH shares, she has to give away her baby. > [@](#): > > And the state has an interest in _equal rights_ where possible. If the state wanted to say “you had sex, you raise the result” to everyone, that’s fair and equal and that’s fine. If the state wants to say “the woman may opt out. The man - no way” that’s a tad less fair and equal, what? There isn’t even a ghost of an equal rights issue here. A mother has no rights that a father doesn’t have. > [@](#): > > Also I should note that states with Safe Haven Laws apparently see a certain merit to letting people absolve themselves of parenting responsibility. Perhaps you should ask them about the compelling interest? The compelling interest is in preventing babies from being deposited in dumpsters. The concern is for the BABY with safe haven laws, not for the parents (either of which can avail themselves of the laws). > [@](#): > > Mm-hmm. What about before the child is born? What about it? > [@](#): > > If the man loses is say in what happens due to the act of having sex, but the women gets a second chance to ‘rectify’ the situation, explain how that’s fair or equal? Have you not read any of this thread? It’s the _biology_ that isn’t equal, son. Abortion rights are about protecting bodily autonomy, not about preventing births. Men don’t have rights during pregnancy because it doesn’t involve their physical bodies. That’s all there is to it. > [@](#): > > To the first bit: irrelevent terminology detail. To the second: some of us prefer a solution that has equal rights more than _some_ of the time. If the man cannot choose to abort the child against his partner’s will(as the woman can), then he should be given an option that is as close to functionally equivalent with that as possible. He already does have that choice. He doesn’t have to stick his dick in a fertile woman’s body. When he does, he assumes the risk. Pregnancy does not involve his physical body, so all puling about perceived “unequal rights” During pregnancy are completely fallacious and legally ignorant. ---
**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 10, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/146 "2009-06-10T00:00:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s onerous for her to have to pay BOTH shares, which is what you’re demnanding, not just the father’s share. It’s even more onerous to tell her that if she can’t pay BOTH shares, she has to give away her baby. I have a brother who has to pay the price of child care (due to a divorce) - in _addition_, in his case, to being an active parent who takes on more than half of the burden of raising the kid directly. And that extra payment is no “minor inconvenience” - as a result of it he can’t even afford an apartment! It’s an onerous cost for **both** sides, thanks. Your wild hyperbole about it being pennies for the father turning into gold bars for the mother is not impressive. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There isn’t even a ghost of an equal rights issue here. A mother has no rights that a father doesn’t have. Really? The father can unilaterally decide to abort the child over the mother’s objections? Who knew? I’m not impressed by arguments from _complete_ untruth, thanks. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The compelling interest is in preventing babies from being deposited in dumpsters. The concern is for the BABY with safe haven laws, not for the parents (either of which can avail themselves of the laws). Are you saying that the father can avail himself of safe haven laws over the objections of the mother, the way the mother can get an abortion over the objection of the father? That’s very interesting! And the fact that providing equal rights for the parents would result in some babies being raised without vampirically leeching off an unwilling absent father is a sad, sad effect of equal rights. Too bad equal rights are in the constitution, huh? (Gender being a protected class and all.) Guess you’re just going to have to vote to increase welfare support for all those single parents out there to compensate - \*that \*solution, at least, is constitutional! > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What about it? Abortion? Hello? Anybody in there? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Have you not read any of this thread? It’s the _biology_ that isn’t equal, son. Abortion rights are about protecting bodily autonomy, not about preventing births. Men don’t have rights during pregnancy because it doesn’t involve their physical bodies. That’s all there is to it. Utter tripe, _old man_. Women have rights over their body _only_ because they’re granted by the state. (At least until the anti-abortion people take over.) There is nothing biological forcing the state to grant the right to terminate the pregnancy, nor is there anything biological _preventing_ the state from granting the men from terminating their own relationship to the pregnancy. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He already does have that choice. He doesn’t have to stick his dick in a fertile woman’s body. When he does, he assumes the risk. Pregnancy does not involve his physical body, so all puling about perceived “unequal rights” During pregnancy are completely fallacious and legally ignorant. The woman had the choice to abstain too, but she \*also \*gets more rights before the fetus is born! Welcome to the thread! And your argument by false assertion of fallaciousness is unimpressive too, I might add. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/147 "2009-06-10T00:10:04Z")
I’m still waiting for someone to address why _You shouldn’t have put your dick in her if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ is substantively different than _you should’ve kept your legs crossed if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/148 "2009-06-10T00:33:53Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > [Really?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_haven_law) > > Regardless, abortion is functionally equivalent. The woman has an option to unilaterally discard 100% of obligations to the child. Also if we let the man write off his rights to the child, she would have the option of putting it up for adoption, freeing herself from responsibilities similarly. > > I would of course be in favor of the _woman_ being able to bear the child and then discard her obligations to it and dump it in the man’s lap, presuming that he could then put it up for adoption himself if he so desired. (And presuming that she didn’t just abort.) If one parent says they don’t want custody of the kid, it automatically goes to the other parent, and the parent that didn’t want custody has to pay child support. If both parents don’t want custody of the kid, the kid is put up for adoption and neither parent has to pay child support, because they aren’t legal parents any more. If a woman dumps a child in a mans lap, he certainly has the option to put the child up for adoption. Or he can be the custodial parent. Look, you guys are looking at it from the point of view of fairness to the parent. But our law is not based on fairness to the parent, but fairness to the child. Adoption is not legal so that parents can get rid of children, it is present so that children without parents can get parents. And so on. All you have to do is look at it from the perspective of the rights of the child, and the unfairness melts away. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/149 "2009-06-10T00:36:44Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I’m still waiting for someone to address why > _You shouldn’t have put your dick in her if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ > is substantively different than > _you should’ve kept your legs crossed if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ It isn’t substantially different. Neither men nor women can force each other to have abortions. Anyone who has a baby growing in their tummy can decide for themselves whether to have an abortion, it doesn’t matter what gender that person is. But you can’t force someone ELSE to have an abortion, neither can you force someone else not to have an abortion. Or we could outlaw abortion and then everyone would be happy, right? Because then everything would be equal, and equality is more important than anything else. ---
**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 10, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/150 "2009-06-10T00:51:06Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I’m still waiting for someone to address why > _You shouldn’t have put your dick in her if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ > is substantively different than > _you should’ve kept your legs crossed if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ It’s blindingly obvious that these statements are equally valid. If a man or woman absolutely, positively does not want to cause a pregnancy to happen, he/she should make absolutely, positively sure that his/her gametes do not connect with anyone else’s gametes. Where the hell is the controversy? ---
**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 10, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/151 "2009-06-10T01:00:18Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I’m still waiting for someone to address why > _You shouldn’t have put your dick in her if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ > is substantively different than > _you should’ve kept your legs crossed if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy_ It isn’t different. Who said it was different? The only difference is that a woman can still choose to terminate a pregnancy after conception. She’s not absolved of any responsibility. She still has to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. ---
**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 10, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/152 "2009-06-10T01:15:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s an onerous cost for **both** sides, thanks. Your wild hyperbole about it being pennies for the father turning into gold bars for the mother is not impressive. I really don’t give a shit how onerous it is for the man. He made the choice to get a woman pregnant. He has to deal with the consequences. There is certainly no rational basis to argue that the poor, put upon dad should be relieved of his responsibilities at the cost of the the mother or the taxpayers. > [@](#): > > Really? The father can unilaterally decide to abort the child over the mother’s objections? Who knew? Men have the same control over their own bodies that women have over their own bodies, and men have tital control over where they puty their sperm. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that the father can avail himself of safe haven laws over the objections of the mother Are you saying the mother can do that? [quote] the way the mother can get an abortion over the objection of the father?[./quote] This is a bullshit false equivalence. An abortion does not involve a child and does not involve parental rights or responsibilities by either party. Yiu cannot equate an abortion to a child. If there is an abortion, there IS no child. > [@](#): > > And the fact that providing equal rights for the parents would result in some babies being raised without vampirically leeching off an unwilling absent father There is no such thing as an unwilling father, and this issue does not involve the slightes issue of equal rights. > [@](#): > > Abortion? Hello? Anybody in there? Abortion is a bullshit false equivalence. Hello? anybody in there. > [@](#): > > Utter tripe, _old man_. Women have rights over their body _only_ because they’re granted by the state. (At least until the anti-abortion people take over.) There is nothing biological forcing the state to grant the right to terminate the pregnancy, nor is there anything biological _preventing_ the state from granting the men from terminating their own relationship to the pregnancy. I don’t know what you think any of this paragraph means. The state recognizes the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Biology dictates that bodily autonomy will involve different issues. > [@](#): > > The woman had the choice to abstain too, but she \*also \*gets more rights before the fetus is born! Welcome to the thread! A man has exactly the same rights over his own body as a woman has over hers. Abortion rights are about protecting bodily autonomy, not about birth control. Welcome to the the thread. The woman has control during pregnancy because she’s the one that’s pregant. That’s biology. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/153 "2009-06-10T01:16:03Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Anyone who has a baby growing in their tummy can decide for themselves whether to have an abortion, it doesn’t matter what gender that person is. Your fucking kidding me, right? You mean like how the law forbids the rich from sleeping under bridges and stealling bread? Or how it forbids same sex marriages of heterosexuals, at least in my state? Or permits gays and lesbians to marry people they can’t fuck? Here’s how it plays out: unplanned pregnancy? Her, you have options, him, tough fuckin’ titty ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/154 "2009-06-10T01:18:44Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > Here’s how it plays out: unplanned pregnancy? Her, you have options, him, tough fuckin’ titty That’s right. And that’s the way it should be. Don’t like it, keep it in your pants. Spare me the bitching and whining about the existence of abortion; it’s the parents’ job to support the child, not the taxpayer. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/155 "2009-06-10T01:56:37Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Don’t like it, keep it in your pants. and yet a woman doesn’t have to keep it in her pants, she has months to weigh the consequences and still decide to opt out, even over the fathers objections. ---
**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 10, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/156 "2009-06-10T03:55:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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 know, if you’re just going to deny reality, that makes the discussion kinda tough. ---
**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 10, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/157 "2009-06-10T03:57:37Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > You realize this would mean informing the government of all of your sex partners, since you never know what could happen (what if you get raped, and it could be from your SO or the rapist?). I don’t follow. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/158 "2009-06-10T04:05:47Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Except, we don’t recognize that if it’s a dude, he’s just a loser who couldn’t keep it in his pants. He’s not a loser for not keeping it in his pants. He’s a loser for walking away from his own flesh and blood, because he’d rather have some spare money for a boat or whatever than help make sure his own child has the best chances in life. Have all the sex you want. But man up when it is time to man up. ---
**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 10, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/159 "2009-06-10T04:06:50Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You know, if you’re just going to deny reality, that makes the discussion kinda tough. You’re the one alleging a particular reality. Let’s see some data to back it up. I’m saying no such data exists. Prove me wrong. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186/160 "2009-06-10T04:07:43Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > I have no doubt that this happens often… I wonder if there are any studies which actually show _how often_ this happens. Of course, it would be hard to get sccurate numbers because such a study would rely on honest self-reporting, but it might give us a ballpark estimate. Well, given that a scary fraction of reported rapes are false, and that the incentives for claiming a false rape pale in comparsion to getting a forced marriage or a sweet payment for 18 years, I’d say the oops I am pregant crowd is far from a tiny fraction… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-for-men-redux-now-roe-v-wade-for-men/499186.md?page=9)