Actually, no. First of all, you’re factually wrong, there;s a thing called “rape” and you seemed to have missed that I was saying that the right to abortion, is not about borth control but individual privacy and bodily autonomy. If you think I’m wrong, read Roe.
I can. Because she’s the one who gets pregnant. It’s pretty fucking simple. The rights are the same before the pregnancy. The rights are the same after the pregnancy. The only time the rights are different is while the woman is pregnant, and I’d like to see you come up with a reason why a woman should not have 100% autonomy over her body during pregnancy.
It already is.
The guy already knows the burden he’ll bear.
I don’t see how any of this is an argument for letting fathers abandon their children, but what makes you think the guys would suddenly become honest even if they could? What if a guy told a woman he wanted a baby and promised to take care of it, then decided to change his mind after pregnancy? How is this woman or her baby better off now that they no longer even have any legal recourse to child support?
If a woamn doesn’t want to seek child support, she doesn’t have to. The fact that some single parents can support a child alone is not an argument for releasing all men from responsibility and saying that the entire burden for childcare should rest only on women. Are you seriously saying we should tell struggling single moms, desperately in need of child support that Madonna can raise children on her own, so therefore you obviously don’t need help.
Women don’t go around putting pinholes in condoms. Can we please retire that ridiculous trope? It doesn’t happen, and even if it did, it’s still the man’s fault for not securing his own condoms.
The idea that we should make it legal for men to run away from their children is repulsive to me. It’s misgynistic and harmful to children. It does not serve society to put the personal greed of men above the needs of their children. I’m amazed that anyone actually takes this idea seriously at all.
Well sure it’s just that easy for women to have a dozen or more abortions or abandoned children. We’ve gone over this before and none of this makes sense when examined.
If a woman aborts or drops the infant off at a hospital the guy is also off the hook, unless of course he wants that baby and she doesn’t in which case he does have legal options. If she keeps the baby she is also on the financial hook for 18 years for this accident except she must care for the child as well as help support financially. The guy can opt to only be involved financially.
As has been said numerous times in numerous threads. It will not be perfectly just
and equal because biology dictates it cannot be. The law has to deal with biology as it exists. The lines are pretty clearly drawn. Equality in the decision to have sex and risk pregnancy. Once pregnancy occurs it’s only reasonable to let the woman make choices about her own body. Once the baby is born there is another citizen with rights to consider. Since this citizen cannot provide or protect itself the law must protect and try to provide. Who should provide? Both biological parents is the reasonable answer.
Yes the system makes mistakes and is far from perfect. Welcome to real life. Women lie to trap men and men lie to get sex. Men abandon unwanted off spring all the time in this country and your proposal is to make it even easier for them to do so. How is that just? What would the realistic consequences of such an action be? A new generation of men being even less responsible about procreation and parental obligations then they are now because society has told them it’s officially okay to fuck whomever you can with *no *concern about unwanted pregnancies. Just wave it off. Your suggestion places an unequal portion of responsibility for birth control on women and an burden on society to care for the children born from such irresponsible behavior. How is that just?
You seem convinced that by giving men an legal option to be less responsible it will force women to be more responsible and result in fewer unwanted pregnancies. Why would you expect that to be successful? Do you have any shred of evidence to indicate it might be so. How does shifting the responsibility completely to women result in fewer pregnancies?
Society was already like that generations ago and decided it was not better for a civilized society. to encourage men to share the burden rather than walk away.
What are you talking about? Who wants to do away with child support? I thought I made it clear that such “Abortions for Men” would logically and legally occur only during early pregnancy.
I have no idea why you think it doesn’t happen. Of course it happens. My own grandmother suggested it to me during a rough spot in my marriage. Of COURSE I didn’t do it, but others do. I know several surprise babies who were only a surprise to one of their parents.
Again, all arguments I’ve heard about women from the anti-abortion crowd. It doesn’t convince me there, and it doesn’t convince me here. No one is better off with a coerced parent.
Relatively speaking, that’s easy and casual.
If men decide not to incur legal fees and just walk away are they then on the hook. How many young men do you think there might be who can afford legal fees? Men knowing ahead of time they can legally walk away from parental responsibilities cannot realistically benefit society as a whole.
That’s possible. Have you considered the other side of that coin? Women already know that men may walk away or seek to avoid parental responsibilities. What do you think will happen to future generations of males when this is in place? Will fewer men lie to get sex? Make promises they have no intention of keeping? I think the condom pinholes and other imaginings would be vastly offset by legalizing male irresponsibility.
Do you assume many more women lie to trap men than men lie to get sex and be irresponsible?
If they are paying child support they are not “deadbeat mothers”. Abortion is about controlling what happens with your own body, like removing a mole or getting a haircut. When babies start coming from tubes rather that uteruses then both parties can have equal rights.
That’s doing away with child support. It doesn’t matter when the guy decides to run away from his responsibilities.
I don’t believe for a second that it happens with any kind of frequency at all, nor do I believe it would even be very likely to be effective. Moreover, as I said, it;s the man’s responsibility to secure his own condoms anyway.
False equivalence. The anti-abortion crowd is talking about imaginary babies, I’m talking about real ones. And a woman who gets an abortion is not avoiding responsibility for a pregnancy, she’s taking responsibility for a pregnancy.
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.
Heh…if I could have just deleted what I posted first completely, I would have. I totally read someone wrong and originally posted something that would have sounded really stupid because of it.
So am I. Once more: I’m talking about Abortion for Men being a legal option in early pregnancy. Same as literal abortion. You’re the one who keeps dragging it to apply to already born kids.
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.
Yes, just like a woman who decides not to incur abortionists’ fees are on the hook.
'Bout as many as young women who can afford abortion, would be my guess.
People being coerced into parenthood at a time when the population isn’t suffering from low numbers cannot realistically benefit society as a whole.
But by legalizing parental choice for men, we give each individual woman an informed choice. Not all of them, sure. There will still be deadbeats and liars, I get that. But there will be some men who say, just as they do now, “Hey, I’m not cut out for this parenthood thing.” And if they want legal protection for that, they’ll have to do it in time for a woman to decide that she’d rather get an abortion, or seek an infant adoption, than be a single mother.
No, I’d bet a lot more men lie to get sex than women lie to trap men. But I’m not sure why that’s relevant.
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. There are others who do lie about being willing to be responsible parents once they find out about a pregnancy, who might not lie if they knew their choice had legal standing. And, of course, there are the far greater number of men who are responsible and willing to be fathers, and nothing at all would change for them.
It makes all the difference to the woman and her choice. Running during pregnancy allows her to get an abortion or arrange an infant adoption if she doesn’t want to be a single mother. That’s a lot harder to do after birth.
A woman unable to support a child on her own may feel forced to have an abortion. Before anyone objects to that, I am well aware that such a woman could give a child up at birth but that is not the way all women think.
You honestly believe that? Healthy, white babies are “snapped up”, children with any sort of defect, and children with darker skins, are not.
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.
Me too. This is one of those persistently debated “dilemmas” that actually seem like complete non-dilemmas to me. It’s up there with “Is waterboarding torture?”
The reason that women are allowed to abort a pregnancy while men aren’t is because…well duh, women get pregnant while men can’t. Abortion rights weren’t given to women based on some arbitrary coin flip. That should be obvious to everyone, right? Yet we keep hearing people ask with much naive earnestness “Why do women get control over parenthood, while men can’t!!!”
There is no getting around basic laws of nature, ladies and gentlemen. Yeah it’s unfair. It’s unfair that women bleed from their twats every month, too.
Using the law to balance out the inequality that biology put in place is not going to do anything except hurt children and make women 100% responsible for contraception and reproduction. In what bizarro fantasy dimension is this more fair than holding both men and women responsible for their offspring? No one on the other side is able to explain how the societal benefits of allowing men to legally “opt out” outweigh the costs.
And also, the OP and others seems to be arguing from the extreme exception rather than the rule. Ignorance regarding how adoption laws work also seems to plague this side of the convo. Believe it or not, most women who get pregnant accidentally aren’t scheming manipulators trying to sink their claws into some hapless male to use his sperm to cash in on 18 years worth of cash and prizes. Safe haven laws apply to men and women. A woman can’t put up her child up for adoption without going through the father of the child, and vice versa. And while it hasn’t been brought up yet, women are also expected to pay child support.
Actually, he could have sex with someone who isn’t a woman or some thing that isn’t a woman. I realize that will cause :eek:, but it is a possibility. Or he could have sex with post-menopausal women if he must have a woman but absolutely wants no possibility of children. Ya’ll are unimaginative.
