Abortion for Men (redux) now "Roe v. Wade for Men"

Great Debates
441

I don’t give a damn if nobody ever has unmarried sex again. But the issue isn’t about that, is it? If the contract is a pain in the ass, men will just use it to wipe their ass, and then go an and have casual sex to their heart’s content and then try to dodge paying child care to any bastards they sire. Maybe they’ll be lucky and be real poor so that they hardly end up having to pay anything anyway!

The problem with formal pre-coital opt-out contracts isn’t that it’ll stifle casual sex. The problem is it won’t. It won’t accomplish anything at all.

Damn, you’re right! No woman who would ever have an abortion ever has unmarried sex. Clearly. Cause the deal is broken, you see?

Sorry, no. Things that you maybe might have to do after sex aren’t going to be as big a smack in the face as things you have to find a notary for at 11pm on a saturday before sex.

Yet another crappy analogy. Don’t let reality hit you on the way out.

I’d have a problem finding a way to make the thing legal. It’s not something you write on a cocktail napkin - it’s got to be legally sturdy enough to counteract all of child/parent responsibility law! I’d be surprised if even a signature alone would be considered binding - having three drunks and a bribed barman witnessing it may not even suffice!

Pay attention. Opt-out will not work. Opt-out is dumb. Opt-out will not deter casual sex. Nobody will use it.

Opt-out simply isn’t an option. It’s to this issue wat Separate But Equal was to equal rights. It’s a sop that sounds all well and good but will be ultimately ineffective and allow the status quo to go on as it was.

It’s a way for the anti-side to get the pro-side to sabotage themselves. Nothing more.

Opt-out is a parody of itself. Opt-in, at least, is not, and has the advantage of at least addressing the inequality that this thread is about, in a functionally effective way. It may not be perfect - but it’s a viable alternative - if not politically likely because it’s much more politically viable to piss on the rights of slutty men.

Maybe the teeming half-dozen reading this thread get that - maybe they don’t. (Some certainly don’t care given that they’re in favor of pissing on the men regardless of everyting else.) Regardless, I will leave it up to them to make, and express, their own opinions.

442

The biology’s the same now? Or does that toggle to match your convenience?

This same argument could have been, and probably was, given to support slavery.

Look. The law currently provides an unequal situation. This is based in part on the biology (though I strongly suspect it’s more based on the historical precedent that women didn’t hold jobs and thus needed support), but the law need not be dictated by the biology (or historical precedent). The law can change. It probably won’t - nobody likes deadbeat dads, those losers, let’s shoot 'em all and put their heads on pikes, castrate their corpses, seize their property and give it all to the baby - but that doesn’t mean the issue is handled in an inherently optimal manner at present.

443

Good for you. (no sarcasm, no snark)

Yes, I know. Which is precisely why I want a more serious way out.

No, I don’t carry a contract around :D. Like I said, that’s just cold, even to jerkass me. As for women turned off by my honesty, sure, in different ways. Well, less often than by my face, but… :slight_smile:

As I said earlier, yeah, no matter what the outcome, there’ll always be a cost. Even for abortion. And I don’t mean only in a financial sense, either. But not all costs are equivalent for everyone.

Yup, trust me, I know. Which is exactly why I’m so concerned about the next time.

444

I would like to note that while the pre-coital opt-out is nothing but a fraudulent argument used to pretend that you’re addressing the issue of equality while actually intending to reject it in all practical terms, post coital is not necessarily so dishonest. If the man were given time and notice comparable to the woman’s window to initiate an abortion, it would satisfy the equal rights issue without necessarily being so arduous to render itself irrelevent, like pre-coital opt-out would tend to.

The problems with post-coital opt-out are based in the “notice” aspect - and the question of “why wait?” Regarding the notice, it could be dodgy at best. Pregnancies aren’t detectable immediately, and while the woman might know you were responsible, you might not - and she need not tell you. And worse, she could claim she had! I predict legal complications. Unnecessary ones, from my view.

The other thing is, if the man does his paperwork, opt-out is indeed exactly equivalent in effect to opt-in. So, why prefer the former over the latter? The main answer I’ve seen here has been along the lines of “let’s lay a trap and see how many of those slutty men we can catch, heh heh heh.” The idea is to punish irresponsibility - but not the irresponsibility that got the woman pregnant in the first place. Irresponsibility in filing the paperwork afterward.

Now, that’s just odd. What’s the purpose of that? Well, to try to bypass the opt-out as much as possible, obviously - based on things that have nothing to do with the actual infraction you wish to discourage. Which seems a little dodgy from the perspective of equal rights. In my opinion.

445

I can’t speak for Dio but I certainly don’t. The fetus is growing inside the woman. It’s her body, and because of that she’s entitled to more control of the process. Think that’s a bugger? Take it up with the early mammalian ancestors that evolved internal reproduction.

446

The thing is, it isn’t mammalian reproduction that allows women to opt out of motherhood. Biology, without legal or medical intervention, does not allow a woman to opt out of being a mother once she conceives. We have since developed ways of allowing this to happen, rights which we grant women to exercise but not men. Diogenes is saying that having sex with a woman, regardless of any efforts he may have made to prevent conception, confers de facto responsibility on a man for 18-21 years for the offspring that result. Women have ways of opting out of that responsibility, conferred on them by technology and the law. That is a double standard, and it could be remedied by the law. Those are just facts. If you think that the law should not offer such remedies, fine, but don’t claim it’s because of biology, because it’s not.

447

We’ve always had abortion. Always. “We have since developed…” is a disingenuous statement.

And your statement about biology strongly suggests that you don’t understand what the word biology means. The fact that medical intervention can allow a woman to “opt out” while it doesn’t for men is, like, the whole entire point.

448

I thought you weren’t going to engage me. Huh. Guess you just couldn’t resist. Also can’t resist a snide dig about my understanding of the word biology. I’m just going to make a simple point here, and resist further engagement with you, since you obviously can’t and won’t argue in good faith with me.

Abortion happens to be legal in our society, as are adoption and the safe haven, neither of which are biological. Men have no legally allowed option to opt out of responsibility for a child after conception. A legal option could be created. Do you dispute that? If not, then you are not disputing my point, which is that it is not biology alone that confers on women the sole right to opt out of parenthood. It’s also very much the law that allows it, and that could be changed.

449

No I couldn’t resist. Guilty as charged.

Abortion is the only one of these three activities that is associated with gender inequality. Coincidentally, abortion also is the only one that is a product of biology.

A legal option could in theory be created for anything. So no I don’t dispute this. Calling this an abortion is a misnomer, of course. Him opting out of his parental responsibilities will not prevent a child from being born like a female abortion will. Child support is kind of a moot issue when there is no child to support.

But after the point at which biology makes the genders different (i.e. pregnancy), both men and women can opt out of parenthood via the same legal mechanisms. So this statement of yours is essentially meaningless. The rights between men and women diverge exactly at the moment her body becomes intertwined with the conceptus’ life (i.e. biology). When the baby is born, she no longer has rights that the man doesn’t have. And previous to a conception, she doesn’t have rights that he doesn’t have.

Claiming that reasons other than biology allow women to exercise all this power implies that the state of being pregnant is a minor issue when it comes to deciding the fate of a pregnancy. This makes no sense whatsoever.

450

This is false. A woman can have an abortion and the biological father cannot stop her, legally, even if he is willing to shoulder the entire burden of being a parent. A woman can choose not to tell the baby’s father that she’s pregnant at all. If she does this, the man cannot assert any parental rights he might want to have. Then, she can give the child up for adoption, use the safe haven option, etc. Men have no such choices.

See above.

No one is talking about the fate of a pregnancy. We are talking about legal ways to opt out of the responsibilities of parenthood if they are unwanted, after conception. The “abortion” of the thread title is clearly metaphorical and not biological, hence this is a legal discussion, not one about biology. It is giving a man a legal opt-out that a woman cannot contest, just as a woman has legal opt-outs that a man cannot contest.

451

Of course he can’t. Because doing so would interfere with her right to control her own body. How does this contradict my assertion that their rights diverge the moment her body becomes intertwined with the conceptus’s life? It seems to support it.

What does this have to do with legal rights? Sounds like this is a consequence of women having insider knowledge that men do not because only women become pregnant. If the man finds out that she has a baby from a friend of a friend, then he can most certainly assert his parental rights.

Have you read this thread in its entirety? The idea that men can’t take advantage of safe havens or put children up for adoption are myths that are debunked each time this topic is discussed.

Men can’t contest a woman’s choice to have an abortion any more than a woman can contest his choice to get his appendix removed. A male opt-out bears little semblense to female abortion, and I really see no need in comparing the two. If anything, it should be called male “adopting out”.

452

You are not responding to what I wrote. You said men and women have exactly the same legal options. They don’t. If the man doesn’t know he’s the father of a child because the woman chooses not to tell him, she has an array of legal options for ending her parental responsibility. That was my point WRT adoptions and safe havens, so your reply above is not relevant to what I said.

So you’re going to quibble about the OP’s terminology. Fine. It’s not my terminology, so I don’t care. My point is, women have a hell of a lot of options for dodging parental responsibility, none of which are open to men. The whole, “A man agrees to his parental responsibility when he comes” line ignores the fact that a woman does not agree to same when she has sex. The law could create an opt out for men, to go along with the many, legal and/or biological, that exist for women. That is the entirety of my point, which despite semantic wrangling, you have not disputed, so that ends this portion of the conversation, I guess.

453

Now you’re being silly. I never claimed the biologies are the same. I’m saying the laws as written are based on biological reality as they should be. We can change the law if we see an inequity but the change has to also be based on biological reality. Proposed laws have to consider the rights and welfare of everyone involved. I haven’t read any proposals that will be more just based on reality.

Maybe. So what? In issues of civil equality like slavery and voting rights for blacks or women the biology didn’t interfere with equality, attitudes did. The old laws were written based on ignorance and prejudice. The question was did or should the differences, {skin color or gender} actually mean for any sound reason that equality should be denied. The answer was ultimately no. In this case the biological reality forces the law to consider things like a fetus created by both parties but growing only in the woman’s body, and, the welfare and rights of a new but helpless citizen. It ain’t the same.

Yes the law can change. We actually arrived here from a place where men could and did walk away at will with no legal repercussions. It would be interesting to to some research on when and how the laws changed. I’m willing but won’t have the time for a while. I might guess that welfare had something to do with it. When the state began picking up the tab for father’s who just walked away the problem became more apparent. Perhaps there were some landmark cases of women suing for support before the laws were written. You’re right the laws can change. They already did. We already were a society where men could freely walk away from an an wanted child. They looked at the situation in more modern times and decided that allowed men an inequitable advantage over women and failed to protect and provide for new helpless citizens.

Maybe with abortion more available the law should be looked at again but I’ve never heard one proposal that really made sense. The equality exists when both people risk pregnancy. They both are assuming the risk knowingly. Once conception takes place the law must consider other factors.

I know. It happens that way every time. The woman just sits on her ass living high on the hog from the hard labor of poor men who have been tricked into indentured servitude. It’s not as if the law makes both parents financially responsible for the care and welfare of thier offspring. Oh wait.

454

[QUOTE]

Thanks

I don’t see any way to change it other than the possibility of a pre sex contract. I’m not even sure that would hold up. I do think the idea would cut down on unwanted pregnancies. Girls could insist that ,the guy pays, is written in the contract. That might give them both pause.

I understand. 20+ years ago when I was on the road with a band I was an irresponsible bastard when it came to women. I was pretty direct and upfront about what I wanted and didn’t want. I was always surprised at women who threw themselves at the band and then wondered why we weren’t having a meaningful relationship. Often I was honest without much sensitivity and surprisingly some thought I was an asshole. :slight_smile: Other’s really didn’t mind my being so blunt.

Agreed. I don’t appreciate how slow and unreasonable the courts can be when adjusting the child support amount when incomes change. Sadly we can’t realistically expect all the laws to be implemented fairly even if the letter of the law strives for fairness.

455

“Debunked” is not the correct word to use. Each time “Safe Haven” laws have been presented as an option women have to remedy themselves of the burdens of parenthood, those “debunking”, respond with :

Nobody said that men couldn’t take advantage of safe haven law. It has only been noted that safe haven laws are additional legal constructs that allow women to opt out of parenthood, and they can do it on a no-questions-asked basis, without the father’s consent. To make mention that men can also use Safe Haven laws is as disingenuous as Judge Lawson’s response to Matt Dubay’s mentioning the availability of Safe Haven laws to unmarried pregnant women. Judge Lawson wrote:

That seems to be somewhat of a disingenuous statement for a judge to make. In Judge Lawson’s opinion, Matt Dubay does not have a case in citing the “Safe Haven” laws because the law is “gender neutral” as written.

I wonder how Judge Lawson would react to a business owner who enacted a company policy of terminating the employment of any employee who made the choice to become pregnant? Afterall, the policy would be “gender neutral”. It would apply equally to both male and female employees who are pregnant.

456

So your first point, if I understand it correctly, is the control women have over the process is a result of technological progress, not nature?

If so that may be true but so what? Doctors will mess with your body in all sorts of ways if you need or want them too (and have money of course), but “it’s not natural” isn’t a valid objection. Contraceptives aren’t natural either, nor is a majority of people living past 40, nor even is taking a car to work in a building instead of hunting for something to strangle with your barehands, and eat raw.

If Dio is saying it’s all the guy’s fault then of course he’s wrong. It takes two to tango, but if he’s saying both are responsible and should own up to the kid then he’s right. The kid didn’t ask them to bump uglies but they did, and they share the consequences.

457

I’m pro choice.

I’m for equal rights.

No one person should be held responsible for the decisions of another person.

If a boy can avoid responsibility for a child by having his sperm inserted by someone else and even get paid for it…

Its time we stop favouring and coddling women. They have all the choices and means of recovery from poor decisions. Sorry to be so blunt, but it just reflects the attitude of Dio on the other side.

458

It’s “favoring and coddling” women to expect guys to provide part of the support for their kids? Really?

459

But him not knowing he’s a father is an artifact of biology, not law. If a woman chooses not to disclose who the father is, what can the law do about it? She very well might not know. She may not want to risk naming the wrong guy. She may be afraid that the guy will retaliate against her or the baby somehow. In theory, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was the man who knew what the mother didn’t, the very same scenario applies. But just because this never happens because women, as a consequence of biology, know when they become mothers, doesn’t mean that the law is discriminatory after a child is born.

It’s very much revelant. Ignoring the role that biology plays in the imbalance you decry is causing you to make weak arguments.

If we give men a post-conception opt-out, every advantage you’re complaining that women have would still exist, and they would probably be exploited more than they are now. If women can glibly keep men in the dark about the babies they’ve sired, they most certainly can keep in them in the dark about pregnancies they are carrying. What can be done about that? Absolutely nothing. It’s impossible to create legal maneuvers that truly level the playing field in this area. That’s why fixating on what women can do that men can’t is a gigantic waste of time and energy.

460

Women are not in the same position that men are after conception occurs. They have many options for getting out of that responsibility, during and after the pregnancy. If the woman wants to bear and raise the child, the man has absolutely zero options for getting out of it. That is the inequity that the law could remedy.

Whatever. You thinking my arguments are weak is of no moment to me. The point is that women do not consent to being parents because they get pregnant, but men de facto consent to it when they have an orgasm. Women have lots of options, some biological, some legal, to get out of it. Men have no such options. You think that’s fine. Others do not. The judgment and scorn heaped on men who’d like to opt out on being a parent after conception is not proportionally heaped on women who use their legally available remedies to get out of the situation. I’d like to see men receiving an equivalent legal remedy. You haven’t, with all your powerful and impressive “logic,” posted anything that compellingly convinces me, or anyone else who takes this stance, that it should not be so.

Obviously you can’t “truly level the playing field.” All you can do is give men one legal way to opt out after conception, to complement the myriad options women have.