# Are men getting the shaft? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264 "2000-11-01T16:54:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/61 "2000-11-02T17:57:03Z")
Me stuffn…I’m no victim and I’m teaching my daughter not to become one either. I and I alone am responsible for my own reproductive rights. You should be too. But yes, I do believe you guys should be crying out for a more effective method of birth control. Or perhaps one that doesn’t interfere with ones “sensation” quite so badly. After all that’s what it’s all about isn’t it “sensation”? Gee, now that the shoe has dropped and landed on your foot it all just seems a little unfair doesn’t it? After all why not get a little taste of what it’s like to have your hormones fucked around with? Why not guys having to remember to take a pill every night, or go in for a shot every three months, or have some copper contraption inserted into your body? What ever happed to those little gold valve things, didn’t they work? Might be something to look into instead of whining after it all too late. Needs2know ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/62 "2000-11-02T18:05:29Z")
Kimstu, if more feminists had your wisdom, there would be fewer problems and fairness issues could be handled more effectively to the greater good. Would saying “you go girl” be out of line? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/63 "2000-11-02T18:13:45Z")
**Wrath:** _Would saying “you go girl” be out of line?_ Well, I guess I’ll overlook it just this once. 😉 Thanks!! ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/64 "2000-11-02T18:18:05Z")
**Needs,** men do have their hormones “fucked” with when it comes to reproduction: steroids (sort of a reverse-birth control, eh?). Causes sterility for some, all in the hopes of having a killer body that babes will die for. But that’s his choice, just as taking birth control pills is a choice. It seems to me that you should feel fortunate to have so many options. If you had only 1 (or none) you would be screaming slavery over not having the ability to prevent pregnancy. But soon men might have their own birth control pill. Cool. But that won’t protect _you_ if he doesn’t take it and you agree to a one-nighter with a hitchhiker. What would _you_ like to use to prevent pregnancy? I’m sorry all options might not all be perfect, but if you want to have sex (and it _is_ your body and your right to have sex, right?), and you’re not sure about the moral integrity of your partner, don’t you want as many options as possible? If I were you I would. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/65 "2000-11-02T19:05:35Z")
**Needs** , as I suspected there has been research into various forms of male contraceptives for the last 30 YEARS. I can’t link them so please cut and past these into your browser [http://www.dailyemerald.com/archive/v99/1/971208/pill.html](http://www.dailyemerald.com/archive/v99/1/971208/pill.html) and [http://www.gumption.org/mcip/paper.html](http://www.gumption.org/mcip/paper.html) Now can we stop with the anti-male bull? ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/66 "2000-11-02T19:39:25Z")
I am not anti-male. I am simply trying to make you see the inequities in your reasoning. I also do not have a problem with monitoring my own birth control. I’ve been doing it for years. Although it would have been nice 10 or 15 years ago to have known that my constant and daily headaches might have been caused by the estrogen in my pills. I use Depo now and the chronic headaches are gone. What I am trying to make you understand and no one seems to want to address this particular aspect of my opinion…men DO have control over their reproductive rights, but they should not attempt to exercise them a day late and a dollar short. The notion that women have the final say in birth control is long rooted in a prevailing double standard that women hold the main responsibility for birth control. It goes hand in hand with the old idea that a boy is man when loses his virginity but a girl that loses hers before marriage is a slut. I’m not man bashing or spouting some feminist bullshit jargon. And if men don’t wake up and smell the roses about all of this then they will be the ones to suffer. Gone are the days when a boy can impregnate a girl, go off to college, marry and start a whole new life while she is sent away to some “girls school” in Vermont to have her baby in shame. Things don’t happen like that anymore. Is it fair that when a woman gets pregnant a man cannot force her to abort, put the child up for adoption or disallow his parental responsibilities, perhaps not. But the hard truth is he cannot get away with simply walking away from that kind of “mistake” anymore. And the reasons have already been explained and quite eloquently so, I believe. So in light of this then he must take action to ensure his reproductive rights before he has sex. That’s all I’m saying really. The idea that the ball is landing mostly in the woman’s court is outdated and promotes a terrible double standard. One that has caused hardship for many women and children. And it is the children who finally are to be protected here. Needs2know ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/67 "2000-11-02T19:55:39Z")
\*\* Needs\*\* I believe we are in disagreement, go back and rea your post. Each and everone of them keeps making it out that the men are trying to duck responsibilities, even the last. Furthermore, it’s dishonest to keep turning the argument around to suit your way of thinking. Here is what I keep saying and you still don’t want to see. Timeline: The Night of Sex (Parental choices Equal)they can both decide not to have sex, protectetive sex, abstain. The next 90 days (Parental choice UNEQUAL) Female can decide if to have, not have, adopt, Male NO CHOICE AT ALL! After that (no Parental choice on wither party) What is unclear to you? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/68 "2000-11-02T20:24:12Z")
Timeline: The Night of Sex (Immediate consequences roughly equal. Risks Equal) STD, bad sex, social consequences of behavior, etc. The next 9 months (Consequences UNEQUAL) Female experience: radical alteration of hormonal balance, physical deformation, potential long term consequences for skeletal health, risk of reduced sexual responsiveness, risk of death, additional financial costs. After that (Consequences EQUAL) What is unclear to you? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/69 "2000-11-02T20:46:32Z")
I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the notion that if you have consentual sex you must be willing to accept the responsibilities. That means even if you use birth control, because birth control can fail. Where the problem lies is in cases where the situation is NOT consentual, either through rape, drunkenness, or deliberate misrepresentation by one of the parties. This is not a wild scenario, it happens all the time. First, we now have it accepted as law that if a woman is drunk and a man has sex with her, it is rape. That means the woman did not consent, even if she said ‘yes’, because she’s not mentally capable of giving informed consent. If you agree with that, how can you say that the situation is different if the male is drunk? If a woman is sober, and takes some half-passed-out guy to bed and managed to get him to perform enough to impregnate her, should he still be held accountable? What about cases of deliberate fraud? What if a woman wants to get pregnant, so she goes out and trolls for a man. The man agrees to have sex with her, but being the responsible type refuses to have sex without serious birth control. So she says, “I hate condoms, and you don’t need one because I’m sterile.” So he throws out the condom, she becomes pregnant, and he’s on the hook. These are the grey areas. Consent was not given. The man had no intention of having a child, and may have even took responsible steps to avoid such a situation. But he was either intentionally deceived or raped. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to say, “It doesn’t matter, because the child comes first.” As I pointed out before, children are rarely used as an excuse under the law. If the rights of children always came first, we’d never lock up mothers who commit crimes, and we’d amend bankruptcy laws to treat people with families different than people without children. ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/70 "2000-11-02T20:54:44Z")
Thank you Spiritus…I just couldn’t for the life of me figure out how to address that. I think what he is saying is that it isn’t fair that once a women is pregnant he has no say so over the final outcome of the pregnancy. (I’m getting punchy and confused, I’m tired now.)But for the life of me I still cannot see why my argument for responsible birth control does not make sense here. Is it because abortions are legal now? I know some of the others don’t like to have this brought into the argument but barring adoption and abdication of financial culpability then what are the alternatives? Please explain Stuffy…I’m lost on the reasoning. Believe me I am not unsympathetic to the plight of men in this situation. It’s just that I don’t think we should allow men or women to just say oops! and walk away. Needs2know ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/71 "2000-11-02T21:02:03Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > > > > Is that sort of scammy? It sounds like it, I know; the mother can terminate a pregnancy. But that just doesn’t matter; it is a completely separate issue. The parents only become parents once the child is actually born, and they have no choice in the matter. Once a baby exists, the duty exists. Prior to birth, no baby exists, and no duty exists; the only right excercised by a woman getting an abortion is her ordinary right to liberty. There is no child, no parents, no parental responsibility, no parental rights. > > **RickJay** , it’s not that I’m not getting your argument, which is very clear and sensible. It’s just that the whole line of reasoning, although legally consistent, still strikes me as ignoring some of the most basic realities of the issue. We can theoretically separate a woman’s right to cease being pregnant from her (non-existent) right to renounce maternal responsibility, but when it comes to making those choices in real life, they are **not** separate issues. I agree, of course. It’s clear they’re connected, and to my mind people have a moral duty to attend to these issues when they make decisions concerning sex, contraception, abortion, and children. But to my mind, the issues must be kept separate on a **legal** level, and that’s what I interpreted the OP as asking. I would never suggest for a moment that legalities can determine morals. But morals but be excluded from legalities, if you see what I mean. > [@](#): > > The distinction you’re drawing between a woman’s “ordinary right to liberty” and the “completely separate issue” of “parental responsibility and parental rights” may be theoretically defensible, but it completely ignores some of the most basic realities of how we actually think when faced with choices about pregnancy, abortion, and parenthood: and that’s what bothers me. And it should bother you. These are bothersome decisions. I didn’t want to address the thousand issues a woman must face when she decides to abort/not abort because I think those issues are separate from the absolute nature of parental duty, but I know they’re significant issues and that a man and a woman must consider them in context. I mean, I think that goes without saying. But I see those as being morally and ethically connected, not legally connected. There are some problems the law cannot solve. As **The Tim** has wisely pointed out, situations like these are going to hurt people no matter how we construct the law. One of the worst errors of social polity you can make here is to change the law to address a problem the law cannot address, and I see this as being one of those problems. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/72 "2000-11-02T21:04:17Z")
Stuffy?! 😃 I kinda like that, thanks **Needs** > [@](#): > > I’m lost on the reasoning. Believe me I am not unsympathetic to the plight of men in this situation. It’s just that I don’t think we should allow men or women to just say oops! and walk away. Well for at least a trimester, a woman can say precisely that, but a man can’t. Anyhoo, like I said I knew it was unresolvable, but it was a nice spirited debate. **Spiritus** , can we say, emotional red herring? ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/73 "2000-11-02T21:40:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Spiritus, can we say, emotional red herring? Sure. But saying a thing does not make it so. Your point has consistently been that the man and woman should have an equal voice in the decision because they faced an equal choice beforehand and an equal consequence in parental responsibility. I have simply pointed out that the consequences of actually carrying a pregnancy to term are not equal. That directly refutes your implied premise (equal choice beforehand + equal consequences --\> equal right to choose whether to bring pregnancy to term). ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/74 "2000-11-02T21:46:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Needs2know \* > **And yes, many women will back me up when I say that for many years a predominately male medical community glossed over, ignored or simply did not believe women when they complained about their reproductive health …** And - > [@](#): > > **I have no intention of addressing the anecdotal cases. There is no point, they are simply that, anecdotal and meaningless to the big picture.** Just wanted to point out that this is rather hypocritical, unless Needs2know meant “objective scientific studies” when s/he said “many women”. > [@](#): > > **What men can’t seem to get through their thick heads is that there would be no baby if they also would accept EQUAL responsiblity for birth control.** The misandry is not appreciated. > [@](#): > > **Yes, it’s true and well established now that PMS is a real and valid condition, but just a couple of decades ago women were just a bunch of bitches.** Does the medical establishment currently consider “blueballs” a real and valid condition? Perhaps someone should start a pit thread based on this one? (Or has someone already done that?) I’m heartened to see that so many people here agree that at least in some cases men “get the shaft”. Perhaps there is hope for the future! 🙂 – BlackKnight, unappologetic masculist ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/75 "2000-11-02T22:35:45Z")
BLACK KNIGHT says: > [@](#): > > So you would dismiss men’s rights for the sake of children? Yes. Absolutely. The only truly innocent party – and the party unable to care for itself without assistance – is the baby. > [@](#): > > Would you be willing to dismiss women’s rights for the sake of children as well? Sure. And society does this all the time – and rightly so. Once you have children, you have the responsibility to raise them and support them. You’re “right” to be “free” does not outweigh your obligations – neither for men nor for women. > [@](#): > > In other words, do the rights of children automatically trump the rights of adults? Automatically and in all cases? No. But in _this_ case – two people have sex, a baby results, the baby needs support – they certainly do. > [@](#): > > Besides, you presuppose that these children will actually be born . . .; Well, obviously. If there’s no child, there’s no problem. > [@](#): > > . . . if a woman cannot afford to raise the child, she can abort it. She CAN, but she doesn’t HAVE to. No one can MAKE her do that. Not society, and not the man who is just not interested in being a father. > [@](#): > > In other words, it is the woman who decides whether or not society foots part of the bill already. Wrong. The woman decides to have the baby or not. Society only has “to foot the bill” if BOTH she and the father are unable to support the child. > [@](#): > > Why not let men have some similar choice? Because we don’t have to. We are REQUIRED to allow women to foist their children on society (should they decide to have them and should they be unable to support them) because we CANNOT make them do otherwise – i.e., abort their babies. We are not required to extend the same “decision-making power” to men, because we are not talking about something as elemental as a man’s right to do as he chooses with his own body. Because we do not HAVE to let men have a similar choice, and because letting them have a similar choice would not be in the best interests of society, we don’t. > [@](#): > > By this logic, every pregnant woman on welfare should be forced to have an abortion just so tax-payers don’t have to pay more tax money to support her children. Talk about a jump in logic! Just because we have existing children on the rolls does not justify adding more if we can help it. Just because we refuse to add more (because other alternatives exist) does not justify kicking off the ones who are legitimately there already. > [@](#): > > Why didn’t the woman use a condom, or use birth control pills, or flat out abstain from sex if she couldn’t afford to have a baby? Note that you and I (well, not me, 'cause I don’t have a job and therefore don’t pay taxes, but you get the idea) already foot part of the bill in many cases when a woman decides to give birth. I don’t know why she didn’t, but for purposes of this hypothetical, she didn’t. Before you suggest withholding support to “punish” her for that, let me point out that we can’t do that, because the support is for the baby’s benefit and the baby didn’t do anything wrong. And, yes, we may already foot part of the bill. How is that an argument for footing all of it? > [@](#): > > What about the woman who ran the risk of a pregnancy happening? If she can’t afford to raise the child, she has the option of an abortion. Why not place the responsibility on the person who chose to have the baby? Because if she chooses not to have an abortion (which she certainly can), then the baby must be supported. The person responsible for that support should be the father. FURT says: > [@](#): > > All that aside, I tend to fall into the camp that says that the whole situation is unresolvable. I’m not persuaded by the arguments that there is no unfairness here. But I also don’t see any conscionable way of rectifying an unfairness that is, at root, the creation of Mother Nature (or God, if you prefer). I totally agree. The bottom line is that while people (men in particular) may think the current system is unfair, there is _no fairer way_ to handle it. The alternatives are to leave the baby without support (immoral as well as unfair) or make the baby the responsibility of society (unfair to society, which is in no way responsible for the child’s existence). MILROYJ says: > [@](#): > > This is the same argument conservatives use against gay marriage. “Gay Men have the same right to marry as Straight Men” they just have to marry a woman. Nice logic, Jodi. Thanks! Too bad your analogy doesn’t employ it. Look, only woman can have babies. Yes? This is an unavoidable biological truth. Therefore, IMO, only women should have the right to decide if they are going to have babies – no one should be able to force them NOT to do so if they want to. (I don’t think even pro-lifers would disagree with this.) Men are just stuck with whatever decision the women make, and that may _seem_ unfair, but there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE that is not LESS fair. Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal institution. There is no biological reason why you could not marry a man, a woman, a pig, or a log – so long as society allows it. So it’s not an analogous example at all. > [@](#): > > And your preivous posts refer to “the rights of the BABY” capitalization yours, many times, but what rights does the BABY have in an abortion?" If you think I’m going to go THERE, you’re nuts. The topic of THIS thread is whether men should be financially responsible for their children – children in existence – not whether abortion is or is not defensible. Then STUFFINB nicely brings us back squarely on-topic: > [@](#): > > THE ISSUE: I believe that if you’re extending parental choice pass conception to the mother, than the father should have that same right. That is the sum total of my argument. But we can’t, and the reason we can’t is that it potentially leaves the baby without a means of support – a shortfall that society must then make up. And it is MORE unfair to place that burden on society than it is to place it on the parents – BOTH the parents. And, again, while the woman may have the sole right to decide whether or not to BECOME a parent (because she is the one who is pregnant and it is her body), once that decision is made and the baby is actually born, she has no more right than the father does to disavow her obligations to her child. They are BOTH equally responsible. KIMSTU says: > [@](#): > > Yes, but we aren’t so reluctant to employ social and legal fictions to redress biological inequities in other issues. That’s because our society is (rightly, IMO) committed to rectifying what you call “biological inequalities” when possible. > [@](#): > > For example, if a woman is physically barred from entering a public place by a man who’s stronger than she is, we don’t tell her “well, men on average are stronger than women and can push them around more: if you don’t like it, complain to God.” No, we have the artificial concept of equality before the law, which means that we bestow on weaker people the right to be equal in many ways to stronger ones, which they certainly don’t naturally possess (“naturally” here meaning “without support from society and its laws”). Surely you can see that we as a society have the ability to make people equal as a matter of law (and in the eyes of the law), but that we do not have the ability to make them truly “equal” in fact. Men are, by and large, stronger than women. Society does not attempt to make men physically weaker in an impossible attempt at true physical equality. Women can get pregnant. Society does not take away from them that right and ability simply to make them truly physically “equal” to men, who can’t. > [@](#): > > Similarly, if a person in a wheelchair can’t climb steps to get into a public building, we don’t say “Well, people with legs can climb steps and you can’t: take it up with God”; the Americans with Disabilities Act insists that on the contrary, the physical realities have to be altered to accomodate the handicapped person’s artificial equal rights to access. That’s because this is a situation that is recitifiable. Equality should certainly be sought out where possible. How do you make equal the fact that women can get pregnant and men cannot? Take away a woman’s right to govern her own body once she is pregnant? Not as far as I’m concerned. The bottom line – again – is that from conception to birth (or wherever you want to draw the “no abortions after this point” line), the decision to have or not have the baby is the womans – must be the woman’s because she is the one, and the ONLY one, who is pregnant. Once the baby is born, however, she is every bit as responsible for it as the man is. > [@](#): > > It always makes me kind of nervous to hear fellow feminists arguing that some inequity or other just has to be accepted because it’s based on biological reality. I fear that that’s the kind of argument that can come back to haunt us. And I don’t. The fire department requires applicants to be able to consistently lift and carry 100 pounds. It is a BIOLOGICAL FACT that men will find this easier to do than women. I do not think it is slighting to either sex – nor discriminatory – to acknowledge this reality. Of course, if women CAN meet that requirement, they have just as much right to be considered for the job as men. And, similarly, the day a man gets pregnant (meets THAT requirement), he ought to have the same right to govern his pregnant body that a woman does. And the same responsibility should he have the child. BTW, as I think someone already pointed out, if a woman is raped and decides to have the child, she is responsible for that child, even though she didn’t want it. Where’s the outcry about how unfair that is? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/76 "2000-11-02T22:57:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Does the medical establishment currently consider “blueballs” a real and valid condition? Actually, yes, although they likely use a fancier name–vasocongestion of the testicles, perhaps. But even I am aware that arousal without release can be painful for both men and women, and a habit of it may lead to more serious medical conditions–albeit, not as serious as horny young men in the back of cars might like us to believe. I remember reading that prostitutes can have trouble with chronic vasocongestion without orgasm. How’s that for a hijack? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/77 "2000-11-02T23:15:42Z")
Great post Jodi, again we’re at an impasse though! ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/78 "2000-11-02T23:22:35Z")
BlackKnight wrote: > [@](#): > > I’m heartened to see that so many people here agree that at least in some cases men “get the shaft”. Particularly in those cases where they have sex with other men. 😉 \ ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/79 "2000-11-02T23:47:59Z")
I think pro-choice women are encountering an argument that they would like only to apply to men. ‘You don’t want to be a father? You should have thought of that before you had unprotected sex with this woman. Now you are on the hook to support the resulting child to age 18, and you don’t have any other options.’ ‘You don’t want to be a mother? You should have thought of that before you had unprotected sex with this man. Now you are on the hook to give birth, and you don’t have any other options.’ ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2000, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264/80 "2000-11-03T00:11:05Z")
SHODAN, are you saying that because a woman has the right to end a pregnancy by having an abortion because she doesn’t want the child, a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he doesn’t want the child? Please clarify whether this is in fact your position (as it appears from your last post), and if it is not, why not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-getting-the-shaft/39264.md?page=5)