Of course it’s not fair, but now you’ve gone from “Men shouldn’t have to support a chid they didn’t want” to “Some men get screwed in court” Some women get screwed in court,too. People of both sexes sometimes don’t comply with court orders ( custodial parents may not allow the visits granted in ourt, and non-custodial parents may not pay the support ordered). That doesn’t mean the other party doen’t have to comply.It’s not fair if a father gets visitation every other weekend, one evening a week, three weeks in the summer and half of the holidays, but doesn’t pay support, but the mother has neither a legal nor a moral right to deny visitation because of that.
Back to your original question. If you assume that the man and the woman have an equal say in whether there is a an abortion,you end up with a tie whenever they disagree. On what basis do you think the tie should be broken?
The arguments against “male abortion” seem to stem from the idea that both the male and female are equally responsible for the child. That is correct. BUT, the female has the ability (i.e. right) to relinquish her responsibility through the methods of abortion and adoption. The man does not. They do not have equal rights. The man is totally at the mercy of the woman’s decision. I am making the call for equal rights for both the man and the woman. There are two ways to accomplish this. Give men the right to relinquish there responsibility for the child or deny women the right to relinquish responsibility for the child (i.e. ban both abortion and adoption). I for one really dislike the latter of the two options. Thus, I conclude that the former is the best choice.
As for the rights of the child, it has no rights. It is nothing more than a parasite sucking nutrients from the woman. Like any parasitic growth, she has the right to remove it whenever she pleases. After the child is born is another matter.
[hijack]
He went to my school, some years before I was there. My politics teacher remembers him well, and we wasted half a lesson talking about him
[/hijack]
carry on…
Completely ignoring the fact that fathers already have to consent before their children may be adopted, eh Procacious? That is, as long as the father has expressed the slightest interest in the child in the first place . . . which I’m assuming from your “please find me a way to avoid responsibility for my sex life” argument that you wouldn’t have.
Fair enough. That is what I get for introducing adoption into an abortion thread. But I could swear that I have heard of single moms giving their child up for adoption in cases where the male is not around (although is not deceased either). This was really the situation I was picturing, but I confess I have not studied the law and it may be true that the mother will be unable to give the child up for adoption even though the father is no where to be found. As for trying to get out of the responsibility that my sex life brings, I am only asking for equal rights. The right to have a chance to abort the mistake after the zygote has already combined with the uterine lining. Although in the male case the abortion of the mistake obviously cannot involve actually forcing the woman to kill the child since that would vioalte her rights. I have proposed a way that is as analogous as one can get in this situation without violating the mother’s rights. As it is, men are the ones that must say no to sex because they are the ones that get no second chance to prevent their life from being ruined. That is not only unfair, it is unequal.
In cases where the woman wants to give the child up for adoption but the man does not I would hope that the man would just “adopt” the child directly. I don’t see much of a need for adoption when the man wants the child, though the woman should be able to disown it at that point so that the man has full financial responsibility for it.
Yeah, it happens, unfortunately. IMHO, the rights of fathers are not protected nearly enough when a single mom gives up her child for adoption. The Supreme Court (state laws may or may not be more strict) has basically said that it’s not a violation of a father’s rights to have his rights terminated unless he has put forth some sort of effort to establish ties. Personally, I say we give mothers the third degree until they give up the name of the father or conclusively establish that they were too drunk to have the slightest idea who they were having sex with.
In the rare circumstances when daddy doesn’t know he’s a daddy and mommy ain’t talking, it’s hard for daddy to establish ties that would prevent termination of rights and adoption. But at least the unwitting natural father won’t be financially liable for the kid if he has his rights unknowingly terminated.
Hell, you already have equal rights in this regard. Feel free to remove anything you want from your own personal uterus. And the same thing applies to anybody who actually has a uterus, of course. Equal rights all around! 
If daddy puts the kibosh on mommy’s attempt to give the kid up for adoption, there’s no need for daddy to “adopt” at all–he’s already the legal father, and will have no problem gaining full custody (assuming he’s a fit parent and mommy doesn’t prefer to keep junior herself). And if mom’s attempts at adoption get thwarted by an interested father, she’s still legally obligated to provide support for the kid, just as dad would be in the reverse situation.
Quoting only those two sentences of mine take my argument out of context. I obviously don’t need the right to take the child out of my uterus, since I am having trouble finding my uterus (and don’t think I haven’t looked). 
The sentences afterward clearly state, (at least I think it is clear), that the woman alone should have the right to choose what happens to her body, but that does not mean that the man has be entirely at the mercy of her decision.
So the mother has the right to give birth, but the child has no right to support from the father if he objects to it? Good luck getting that “get out of paternity free” card past aby legislature in the nation.
Don’t worry, you’re wrong. People may agree or disagree, but the key point is that the law holds that, until it is viable, a fetus is not a person. Under that precept, there is no violation at all of equal protection. Both men and women can abort a child, equally - the fact that men don’t have uteri? BFD. (Yes, I know this is facetious - the better way of saying it is that you cannot be deprived of a right you are incapable of exercising.)
Once a fetus is viable and/or after birth, neither the mother nor the father can avoid their responsibility to support their child, unless they give the child up for adoption.
Sua
So I assume you are opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage?
Huh?
The allusion was to arguments people have made against same-sex marriage, saying that everyone has the same right to be married. Any man may marry any woman. Very similar to your comment that I quoted.
Actually, I’ve always had a problem with the equal protection argument in favor of same-sex marriage. I once wrote an article in favor of same-sex marriages, but based it on a different premise - the best interests of the (actual or hypothetical) children of a same-sex couple.
Sua
Mothers already have “get out of maternity free” cards. They are automatically used whenever the mother has an abortion or gives the child up for adoption. The fact that a man does not have a uterus does not mean he should not get a “get out of paternity free” card. His card is also used automatically when he gives the child up for adoption or has an abortion, but male abortion does not involve going to a doctor, only a lawyer. (Well, it would involve this if it existed that is). I am tired of having to take all the responsibility for sex because I am the only one that doesn’t get another chance. Yes, having an abortion or giving up a child for adoption is one hell of an ordeal, but no where near as bad as having to put up with the little bastard for 18+ years.
And I, for one, am sick of not driving a Lamborghini. It’s just not fair that those wankers with more money than me can.
Guess what? Tough. Deal with it. Take comfort in the fact that, on average, you are more likely to be promoted and make more money than the mother, and therefore will have more excess income with which to support the child.
And, of course, you are quite obviously not the only one to take “all the responsibility”. As you may or may not know, the mother is also legally responsible for supporting the child. She’s not getting out of anything simply because the father also has to support the child.
Sua
Don’t worry, Procacious. Just be real up-front with the girl. Share all your thoughts and feelings on this subject. Don’t hold back. If you do that, I’m 100% positive you will not have to worry about ever taking responsibility for sex.
True, but it was her decision to keep the child, thus she is getting something that she wants while I am getting something that I do not want (assuming that in this case I do not want the child). If I could give up my half of the child for adoption then there would be no problem.
Although I detect sarcasm, I will comment as though it is not there just in case I am wrong. As it is, I refuse to have sexual intercourse with any woman that I have not had a thorough discussion with about what her plans would be if she did become pregnant. This is quite the sexual obstacle as you can imagine and nearly always results in “killing the mood” (at least for the evening) even in those cases where her response is pleasing to me. Since I get no second chance I have to take a greater amount of the pre-sex responsibility. In the age of equality, it is not necessary for this to be the case.